Sitting of 6 April 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROADS

    Kingsway Tunnel
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has yet received the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on the possible use of the Kingsway Tunnel.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): No, Sir.

    Railway Crossing, Halesworth
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the representations made to him by the Halesworth Urban District Council and by the hon. Member for Lowestoft, in respect of the inconvenience and loss incurred by the closing of the Halesworth Station railway gates for extended periods each day, he will now take steps in conjunction with the East Suffolk County Council for the construction of a road bridge over the railway at an adjacent site plans for which are already in being.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am aware of the need for this scheme but I cannot yet say whether I shall be able to accept it for grant this year.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable loss to the economic life of the town of Halesworth and the surrounding country by the inordinate length of time which this bridge is closed every day? The right hon. Gentleman has been provided with statistics by the local authority. Has he given consideration also to the strategic importance of
    1144
    this bridge, because it would link up parts of East Anglia where there are important military sites of high strategic importance?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is a good deal of force in the first half of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I know that this scheme is needed, and I will do my best to fit it in. But, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, it has to be fitted in with others, the need for which is also urgent.

    Motor Racing, Derbyshire
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the present position with regard to the proposed motor racing track in the area of the Peak Park Planning Board; whether any information on the matter has yet been conveyed to the board; and what action his Department is taking in view of the apprehension aroused.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that the question of racing on the roads of Derbyshire is being considered by the Derbyshire County Council. The project, if approved by the council, would require legislation, and there would, therefore, be ample opportunities for interested parties, including the Peak Park Planning Board, to express their views.
    Mr. Simmons: Will not the Minister at least give an assurance that this piece of vandalism will not be perpetrated in Dovedale?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the Derbyshire County Council so desires—and the matter is with it, I understand—the procedure would be for it to promote private legislation in connection with which, under the procedure of this House, all interests can be represented and all views expressed.

    New Road, Turnhouse
    Mr. J. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will increase the width of the proposed new road which will replace the permanently closed portion of road A9 at Turnhouse Airport; and if, in view of the volume of traffic which will use the proposed new road, he will provide for a dual carriageway or a road capable of taking three lanes of traffic.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The new road will have a two-lane carriageway similar to the one it replaces. It is proposed to add a second carriageway later when the volume of traffic justifies it.

    Great Portland Street (One-way System)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the proposed one-way system in Great Portland Street will be introduced.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There has been some difficulty about the alternative routes for buses, but the Commissioner of Police now informs me that if the Marylebone Council agree to his proposals he hopes to make an early start.
    Mr. Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Great Portland Street project will be north to south or south to north?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Certainly not without notice.

    River Forth (Tube)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how far discussions and plans have proceeded for the proposed construction of the underwater crossing of the Forth near Queens-ferry; and whether the technical soundness of the project has been confirmed.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, on 22nd March.
    Mr. Woodburn: Since the very hopeful announcement of the Government, this consideration seems to have disappeared into the mist. Is it not possible for the Minister to say exactly what the situation is now, who is responsible for furthering it, and when it is likely that there will be any advance in the present situation?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend explained on 22nd March, the Forth Bridge Joint Board agreed to the proposal of my right hon. Friend and myself that the tube scheme should be examined by a panel of experts, and we are proceeding to do that.
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now made a personal investigation of the Forth tunnel site; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir; but any statement must await a report from the panel of independent experts which is to be set up to examine the tunnel scheme.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Cannot my right hon. Friend announce now that, as a result of his visit to Queensferry, he was very much impressed with the importance of pressing on with the tunnel project with all possible speed?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was extremely interesting to see the site of this tunnel, but I do not think that I have anything to add to what I said on that question in my general statement on 2nd February.
    Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend now look at the site of the Tyne Tunnel? We should be delighted to see him, and then, perhaps, we might have some success.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Certainly—if my hon. Friend will undertake to accompany me.

    Glasgow—Stirling Road (Improvements)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when work is likely to proceed on the improvements of the Glasgow-Stirling road; and what estimate he has made of the time required to complete the work.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A commitment of £1,171,777 was made last year for the whole length in Dunbartonshire. A contract is about to be let for the first section. It should be completed in 18 months. Work on two further sections will start during the next 12 months and further work of a value of £1 million will be committed later.

    Pedestrian Crossings
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will inquire into the causes of the increased numbers of killed and injured on zebra crossings.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have asked the Road Research laboratory to investigate and report on the effectiveness of zebra crossings.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: When the results of these investigations are discovered, will the right hon. Gentleman make them public, because, in the last quarter of 1954, 34 people were killed and 292 injured, an all-time high record?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is because of the importance of the matter—although I do not draw quite the inference which the hon. and gallant Gentleman does from these figures—that I have asked the Road Research Laboratory to investigate. It will in any event be necessary to take note of its recommendations if they are specific ones, and in that way they will become public.
    Mr. Page: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has visited the map room at Scotland Yard recently and seen the flags indicating accidents which have occurred through vehicles overtaking on approaching pedestrian crossings—and how significant and frightening these figures are—and will he promote legislation to make that an offence?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the existing law is sufficient, or will be sufficient if the House adopts the Road Traffic Bill, to deal with bad driving in this sort of case, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the reference to this matter in the Highway Code.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many motorists show a complete disregard for the line beyond which they are not supposed to park? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will take any hon. Member opposite, any day, to cities that I know, where there is such a complete disregard. Will the Minister ask the police to have a word with these motorists, so that other motorists approaching these crossings may have an unobstructed view of them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Questions of enforcement, and about police action, are matters for my right hon and gallant Friend the Home Secretary.

    Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adoption)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made in the negotiations, in which representatives of his Department have participated, about the future repair and maintenance of the road
    1148
    between Silverdale and Crackley Gates in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which was last repaired at Government expense 12 years ago.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that the Borough Council of Newcastle-under-Lyme has decided to carry out the necessary work on this road, and that on completion it and the county council are prepared to adopt it as a public highway.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will be very welcome news to many of my constituents, who have suffered for so long from the appalling state of this private road?

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Helicopter Station (Site, London)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made in the consideration given to the provision of a helidrome built on pontoons on the Thames opposite Battersea Park as a helicopter station.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A survey for a suitable site for a helicopter station to serve commercial transport helicopter operations in London is still in progress. Many factors have to be considered, particularly cost, the effect of noise, and forecasts of future helicopter performance. The comparative advantages of several possible sites are under consideration and a final selection has not yet been made.
    Mr. Dodds: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether consideration is being given to the building of a helidrome on the river opposite Battersea Park, as is asked in the Question?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The site to which the hon. Gentleman refers—though I hope he will not compel me to use the word "helidrome"—is one of those under consideration.

    Renfrew Airport and Maintenance Base
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation his policy in regard to the future of Renfrew Airport.
    Sir G. Lloydasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the future of the repair and maintenance base at Renfrew Airport.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. and learned Friend, the Minister of Supply has been informed that the Canadian Government are placing a contract under which Scottish Aviation Limited will undertake the repair and overhaul of Sabre aircraft at Renfrew.
    As this work, together with that offered by B.E.A., will ensure that there should be little or no redundancy, I have informed B.E.A. that I no longer feel justified in pressing it to continue at Renfrew. The House will realise that its work at Renfrew would in any event diminish in view of the withdrawal from service of the types of aircraft there maintained.
    I understand that their withdrawal will take some months and will be phased with the introduction of the work to be done by Scottish Aviation. The position of Renfrew civil airport is, of course, not affected. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a fuller statement of the position.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the contract to which the Minister has referred is obviously of limited duration, can he give us any idea of what is going to happen to the maintenance base once the Sabre contract has been completed?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The immediate contract placed is of two years' duration and ensures work for that period. In considering this matter, the hon. Gentleman will, I know, have in mind the fact that if British European Airways had remained its work would have shown a steady diminution with the withdrawal of the aircraft for which the base was designed.
    Sir G. Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at any rate, some of the workers at Renfrew whom I represent will be very disappointed at his decision? Is he also aware that there will be, in Scotland, widespread satisfaction at, and appreciation of, his successful efforts to avoid unemployment and to retain this important skilled industry on our side of the Border?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The matter, of course, is one in the first place for the commercial management of British European Airways. I think that, having satisfied ourselves about the prospects of employment, it would not have been proper to urge this nationalised industry to continue to conduct affairs in a way which it regarded as contrary to its interests.
    Mr. Woodburn: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not laying down the principle that the Government are never going to use a nationalised industry as an instrument for trying to distribute industry over this country in a fair way.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not laying down any principle. I am only indicating that on the facts of the present case it does not seem to me, in the light of the availability of this work on the Sabre aircraft, that it would have been right to press British European Airways to act contrary to its own views.
    Mr. Maclay: Whatever our views may be on B.E.A.'s attitude to its maintenance base at Renfrew, may I ask the Minister if he is not aware that there will be considerable satisfaction that a Scottish undertaking will carry on this highly skilled work at Renfrew, and does he not agree that this matter will do much more for the future of the aircraft industry in Scotland than the presence at Renfrew of any reluctant Corporation?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that is so, and in the statement which I am circulating I indicate that it seems to me that this is a rather hopeful development in the Scottish aviation industry.
    Mr. Rankin: Are we to understand quite clearly from the Minister's statement that this arrangement offers no security to the workers at the maintenance base at Renfrew beyond the two years for which a contract has been secured?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All contracts of this kind are for a fixed period, and there is no reason to believe that if the work is done satisfactorily, as I hope and believe it will be, the very well-known firm which is undertaking it will not be able to obtain further work; indeed, the firm in question hopes to obtain some other work, even during the duration of this contract.
    Following is the statement:
    Her Majesty's Government have been considering the proposed move by British European Airways of its maintenance base at Renfrew Airport. Such a move is a matter of commercial management for B.E.A., whose estimate that it would result in a saving to it of £800,000 over five years has been confirmed by an independent accountant.
    Her Majesty's Government have, however, been anxious to prevent a serious loss of skilled employment resulting from such a move. B.E.A. has been good enough to maintain this base at the airport to date, though the amount of work has been shrinking as a result of the withdrawal from service of the Viking and will shrink further as the number of the Pionair aircraft is reduced, which were the types maintained there.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Supply has now been informed that the Canadian Government are placing a contract under which Scottish Aviation Ltd. will undertake the repair and overhaul at Renfrew of Sabre aircraft. The work will, it is estimated, provide employment for over 300 men for not less than two years.
    B.E.A. will wish to continue the employment of 100 at Renfrew, and is offering work and a grant for rehousing at London Airport for up to 300. At present B.E.A. employ about 600 men in their maintenance base at Renfrew There should, therefore, be little or no redundancy. This is indeed a promising development of the aviation industry in Scotland. Without it, there would have been a steady loss of employment at Renfrew due to the withdrawal from service of the type of aircraft for which the base is designed.
    In view of this, and of the desirability of encouraging this, as other nationalised industries, to conduct their affairs in as business-like a manner as possible, Her Majesty's Government are informing B.E.A. that they no longer feel justified in pressing it to remain at Renfrew. I understand that its move will take some months, and will be phased with the introduction of the Sabre work. This decision does not, of course, affect the position of the civil airport at Renfrew, whose expanding traffics are a source of great satisfaction to my Department, and whose new terminal building, the first opened in this country since the war, has been a great success.

  SHIPPING

    Port Facilities
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the great increase since the war in the tonnage of export goods handled at British docks, and, in particular, the proportion of such goods arriving by road, he will announce his Department's plans for facilitating the speedier unloading and turn-round of road transport vehicles at the docks.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am always willing to do what I can to help to increase the efficiency of the ports. The arrangements for unloading and turn-round of road transport at the docks are, however, primarily for the port authorities, and I am sure that they are fully aware of the importance of this matter in developing their facilities.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that it is not uncommon for lorry drivers to spend a whole day at London Docks. either discharging or collecting loads, and that very often they spend a day doing neither? Would he investigate this matter, and take some interim measures, with the port authorities, with a view to alleviating this delay, and thus avoid the colossal loss to industry and handicap to exports?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no reason to disbelieve that the port authorities are not only aware of, but are seeking to deal with, this problem. The hon. Member mentioned the Port of London. In point of fact, 1½miles of new dock roads have recently been built by the Port of London Authority.

    Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon Friend aware that there are plenty of ports other than the Port of London which could cope with the traffic, especially in the North-East. and especially in Sunderland?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I know that there are a good many candidates.
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has studied the representations from the Institute of Shipping and Forwarding Agents on the need, in connection with export trade, for the expansion and development of port facilities; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 23rd March.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that that reply was not helpful or conclusive? As it is obvious that his Administration cannot hope to carry through anything extensive, can he give an assurance that plans are being made so as to form a foundation for future improvements?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said in reply to the hon. Member's previous Question, I have no reason to doubt either the efficiency or the energy of the relevant port authorities.

    Flag Discrimination
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation which countries have ceased practising flag discrimination against this country's shipping as a result of his representations.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A number of countries have modified such practices. It would not be in the public interest to particularise.
    Miss Ward: In view of the vital need for maintaining a vigorous British mercantile marine, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will grasp this nettle, and hang on to it, even if it stings, until the sting is eliminated, and our supreme position as of right to trade on the high seas is reasserted in no uncertain terms?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not sure that I follow my hon. Friend in all her metaphors, but I think that I agree with her general point of view.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister giving this matter his serious attention, and is he aware that among the countries practising this very vicious and obnoxious practice of flag discrimination is the United States of America? What representations are being made to the United States Administration to persuade it to cease the practice?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In several previous answers on the subject, I have given a list of the countries which, in our view, are practising flag discrimination, and also a very clear indication of the action that we are taking. I have nothing to add at the moment.
    Mr. Page: May I ask my right hon. Friend why he is so reticent about this, and why he will not tell the House of the great success which the Government have had in their determined efforts with the United States over the 50–50 rule?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as the non-particularisation of particular countries is concerned—
    Mr. Manuel: Very bad.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is awful, is it not?—my hon. Friend, as a member of the legal profession, will realise that when one has success in a negotiation it is not always wise to trumpet it about.
    Mr. Shinwell: But if, in fact, success has been achieved, why should not the House be informed?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, been in charge of international negotiations in his time, and, I think, knows the answer.
    Mr. Awbery: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that when we purchase coal from America no conditions will be laid down about any quantity being carried in American vessels?

  TRANSPORT

    Parking (Lights)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now able to announce his decision in reference to car owners leaving their cars without lights on the street if within 100 yards of public lighting, following his hearing of comments received from interested organisations.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I expect to be able to announce my decision on this matter soon. after the House reassembles after the Easter Recess.

    London Transport (Committee's Recommendations)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many of the recommendations, on matters within the responsibility of his Department, made by Metropolitan Essex local councils to his Department's Committee of Inquiry in respect of transport improvements have been accepted; and what progress has been made in their implementation.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Committee of Inquiry into London Transport. I am afraid I cannot deal separately with recommendations made to the Committee by particular bodies or persons.
    Mr. Sorensen: But can the Minister say what proposals he is considering with a view to improving the amenities for

    1155
    passengers in the north-east part of Greater London, and also the methods of transport?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am considering the proposals embodied in the Report of the Committee but, as the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Committee did not accept all the proposals made to it by the authorities in the district to which he has referred.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: May we have a statement from the Minister about when we are likely to have a decision on the recommendations in the Chambers Report? Many questions have been asked in this House. Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate the intentions of the Government?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Report was submitted only at the end of January after a lengthy and conscientious examination by the Committee, and I am not in a position today to say when a statement will be made.

    Road Haulage Disposal Board
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he proposes to take in regard to the Road Haulage Disposal Board on the expiry of terms of office of its Chairman and members.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have invited the Chairman and members of the Board to serve for a further year.
    Mr. Davies: Why is the Minister reappointing this Board, in view of its poor record during the last 12 months? Is not the Minister aware that during this period it has been possible to dispose of vehicles only by offering them in very small units, and that, therefore, the original intention of the Act to maintain a structure of road haulage on a national basis is not being carried out?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Board has done a very good job, and, indeed, one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends put a Question to me the other day based on the effects of its success.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman not encourage the Board too much, because we want this organisation to be in existence when the Labour Government come back to power?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is wanting the organisation to be in existence, and, therefore, I hope that he is glad to see that I am preserving it.

    Windscreens (Toughened Glass)
    Sir C. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that many private motor vehicles have windscreens of toughened glass; and, in view of the number of cases of the surface becoming overstrained with resulting crystallisation and the danger both to the driver of the vehicle and to other road users, if he will institute further inquiries about the desirability of controlling the use of this kind of glass for windscreens.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. The Road Research Laboratory and the British Standards Institute have been investigating this problem. The solution which has emerged is that the glass should be so manufactured as to ensure that in the event of shattering there is still a sufficient degree of visibility to enable the driver to pull up safely. I understand that most new cars are fitted with glass of this type. Further experience is, however, necessary to determine whether the new standards could be further improved.
    Sir C. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how far his Regulations provide for the fitting of toughened glass in the windscreens of public service vehicles in London and elsewhere.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Regulations provide that the windscreens of all motor vehicles shall be of safety glass, which is defined as glass so constructed or treated that if fractured it does not fly into fragments capable of causing severe cuts. Any kind of glass, including toughened glass, which satisfies the definition is permitted.
    Sir C. Taylor: Is it not a fact that toughened glass would probably come within the provisions of the Regulations, and in view of the menace of this glass and the number of lives that may be injured in public service vehicles, will he consider making regulations giving a limited time in which this glass should be replaced by a safer product?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would not accept altogether my hon. Friend's suggestion that toughened glass is so unsuitable. If he will recall my answer to his previous Question, he will appreciate that improvements in this glass are being worked out. Opinions certainly differ about toughened glass and laminated glass.

    Driving Tests and Licences
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many persons passed driving tests in 1954; and the total number of driving licences now current.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Four hundred and thirty-three thousand six hundred and seventy. The number of ordinary licences current is 7,013,437. As provisional licences are issued for periods of three months only, it is not possible to give the figure for those now current; 2,553,558 were issued.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the surprising increase in the number of driving licences underlines the necessity for the road programme and the Road Traffic Bill?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what provision is made in his regulations for testing applicants for colour blindness when they apply for a driving test.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister now satisfied that the supplementary question which I put to him on this matter last Wednesday was seriously meant, and will he look into the matter in order to make sure that there is no danger due to the fact that people who are colour blind are driving motor cars?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, I have already indicated to the hon. Gentleman, in answer to the first part of his Question, that I appreciate that. In regard to the second part, I have been into the matter and find that, in fact, little difficulty has arisen owing to the fact that traffic lights are always of uniform design and that, therefore, even though the light may not be recognisable, the driver can generally identify it by its position.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is it not a fact that, generally, colour-blind people recognise a difference in shade which tells them that different colours are showing?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that in some cases that is so.
    Mr. Usborne: Does the Minister realise that probably over 5 per cent. of males suffer from some kind of colour blindness and that the greatest proportion of these cannot distinguish red from green?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that is a question which had probably better be put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

    Omnibus and Coach Services (Licensing Applications)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will issue regulations requiring private companies who apply to the Traffic Commissioners for licences to run omnibus and coach services to provide proof of the bona fides of their alleged supporters.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: If the right hon. Gentleman will consult the Traffic Commissioners, perhaps he will change his mind. Has not his attention been drawn to the case in the West Midlands last week, where a bus company produced a fraudulent list of petitions in support of an application, where the fraud was discovered by a rival company, but where, because the application was withdrawn, the Traffic Commissioners were unable to take any action against the company? Surely, there should be some means of preventing such frauds being perpetrated?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and of which I am aware, indicates the fact that the Traffic Commissioners are perfectly capable of weighing the case put to them without further assistance.

    Railway Superannuitants
    Mr. Hargreavesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to make a statement on the proposals to supplement the allowances of railway superannuitants.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The British Transport Commission has put before me

    1159
    a proposal to revise its existing scheme of pension supplements as from 25th April, to take account of the present cost of living. Details will be made known as soon as possible.

    A Special Licences
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many A special licences granted in accordance with the provisions of the Transport Act, 1953, have been revoked under Section 9 (4) of that Act.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir.
    Mr. Davies: How can the Minister account for this, since this Section was included in the 1953 Act to enable action to be taken should the base of the vehicle change after disposal? Is he not aware that a very large number of vehicles are no longer operating from the bases at which they were placed previously when under B.R.S., and consequently the same services are not being provided? Will he look back at the statement made by his predecessor on this matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The reason why none has in fact been so revoked is because the respective authorities throughout the country have not been satisfied that any conditions justifying this have arisen.

    Oxted (Unilateral Waiting)
    Mr. Vaughan-Morganasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what request he has received from the Surrey County Council to make regulations to enforce no-waiting restrictions in Station Road, East, and elsewhere in Oxted; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have been asked, through my divisional road engineer, for a six months' trial of unilateral waiting in sections of Station Road, East and Station Road, West. Oxted; I am at present discussing this with the Chief Constable of Surrey, and hope to reply shortly.

    St. John Ambulance Brigade
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will consider making regulations to give special priority in public transport queues to members of the St. John Ambulance Brigade going on duty.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no powers to make such regulations.
    Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving some guidance in this matter, in that it is very important that these people should be on duty when they are required?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I quite agree, but the trouble when one starts giving guidance in matters of this kind is that there are other categories of people who may feel that they have similar claims.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In a Question which I submitted. I requested some information as to the future of the Renfrew maintenance base. in addition to the airport. That part has been excluded, and reappears as Question No. 36 submitted by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, East (Sir G. Lloyd). is the reason for the exclusion of that part of my Question due to the fact that the Minister proposes to announce to his hon. and gallant Friend that the Renfrew maintenance base is now to be closed and transferred to London and that the Sabre-jet contract has now been secured?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On that point of order, I would respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the form in which the hon. Gentleman's Question appears on the Order Paper is not my responsibility. I propose, when we get to that stage, to answer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. and gallant Friend together, but this is clearly a point for you, Sir, and not for me.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member is alleging that the Question has been altered by the Table. I can only say that all the time that I have seen his Question on the Paper, it has been in its present form.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Cadet Forces (National Service Reservists)
    Major Wallasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the shortage of instructors in the Cadet Forces, he will arrange for men who have had previous service in cadet units and have completed

    1161
    their two years' National Service to carry out their remaining three years' liability in the Cadet Forces instead of in the Royal Naval Supplementary Reserve, the Territorial Army or the Royal Air Force Reserve.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Except for aircrew, National Service men of all three Services may already volunteer to carry out their part-time service with Cadet Forces.

    Estimates (Underspending)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Defence his estimate of underspending by the defence Departments in 1954–55; and how this compares with 1953–54.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: Exchequer issues in 1954–55 to the defence Departments, which give a rough indication of outturn. were £120 million less than the provision in Estimates. Accurate figures will not be available for some months. Under-spending in 1953–54 was £139 million.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of these revelations of further extravagant estimates by the Service Departments, can the Minister now assure us that steps will be taken to impose some more stringent control over the Defence Departments and to ensure accuracy in their estimating?
    Mr. Macmillan: As I told the hon. Member last week, it is still not possible to give accurate figures in regard to some of these matters. The Estimates may be as much as £20 million or £25 million out either way when the final figures are ascertained. That results from the amount of cash on account, held at the beginning or end of the year. We are trying to make the Estimates as accurate as possible.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Will the temporary Minister of Defence do all he can to encourage underspending by the Services?

    North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Forces)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on the decision of the French Government to withdraw two divisions from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for service in North Africa; and what will be the effect on the strength of land forces in the west.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: During the past few months the situation in North Africa has compelled the French Government to transfer forces to that area from the Continent. This has led to a temporary weakening of certain N.A.T.O. reserve divisions in Central Europe.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister regard this position as satisfactory? Is he aware that General Gruenther has recently made a declaration about the need for strengthening the defence of the West, especially the land forces? Is not this an indication of the weakening of the defence of the West?
    Mr. Macmillan: The position is not satisfactory, because of the cause from which it arises, but we have always recognised France's right to use her forces to deal with disturbances in what is, after all, an important N.A.T.O. base.
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but does it follow from what the Minister was saying that any of the N.A.T.O. countries can at any time withdraw forces for purposes of their own, and thus weaken the defence of the West? Is nothing going to be done to prevent that?
    Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we ourselves, in giving our undertaking to maintain our forces upon the Continent, made it clear that this did not bind us in the event of an acute overseas emergency.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say whether this action meets with the general agreement of all the N.A.T.O. forces?
    Mr. Macmillan: This action has always been understood to be the right of nations which have overseas commitments, especially in such a case as this, where, as I say, the position of North Africa is an important part of the N.A.T.O. defence system.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence how far the decision of the French Government to reduce the size of their divisions was accepted by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and how far this will be followed by a proportionate reduction in the size of British divisions.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I understand that the French military authorities, like our

    1163
    own, are experimenting with new formations to suit new conditions. I am informed that no final decisions have been taken.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not it true that for some considerable time the French Government have been contemplating a substantial reduction in the size of their divisions? Why is there all this talk about the standardisation of the forces of the West when the French can reduce the size of their divisions while our divisions remain as large as they were before?
    Mr. Macmillan: I understand that experiments are to be made this summer with these remodelled divisions, and the result of these experiments will be watched and taken into account in coming to a final decision.

  UNITED NATIONS

    Charter Revision
    Mr. Usborneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now state his policy towards the holding of a United Nations Charter review conference; and what instructions he has given to our delegate at the United Nations in this regard.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): The question of holding a review conference will be discussed by the United Nations General Assembly at its next meeting. Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government are considering the problem of Charter revision in consultation with other Governments.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister of State aware that the United States Senate have already set up a sub-committee to study this problem and to take evidence from interested individuals and organisations? Does not he think that some equally lively initiative ought to be undertaken by this country?
    Mr. Nutting: We are consulting other Governments, including the United States Government, upon this matter.
    Mr. Usborne: In view of the fact that a few days ago the Minister of Defence said that disarmament probably involved changing the United Nations into a kind of world government, would it not be appropriate if the Government issued a
    1164
    White Paper explaining how they think the Charter should be re-written in order to take care of that matter?
    Mr. Nutting: I think that that could best come after Her Majesty's Government have expressed their views in the United Nations, and after this matter has been thoroughly discussed in the United Nations, which will be next September.

    Refugees, Hong Kong (Advisory Committee)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the United Nations High Commissioner's Advisory Committee is likely to have concluded its consideration of Dr. Edward Hambro's proposals in respect of refugees and their dependants in Hong Kong; and, in view of the pressing nature of the problem and the burden borne by the Hong Kong Government, what action he has taken to expedite the consideration.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): Dr. Hambro's Report was presented to the Advisory Committee at its last meeting in December, 1954. At that time Governments had not had an opportunity to study the Report in detail, and it was, therefore, agreed to defer consideration of it until the first meeting of the High Commissioner's new Executive Committee, which is to be held on 10th May.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is not this delay most unfortunate, in view of the fact that the problem in Hong Kong is very pressing, and that Dr. Hambro's proposals would have gone some way to relieve the heavy burden that rests on Hong Kong in this respect at the present time?
    Lord John Hope: It has not been possible to do anything in an executive way before this but it will not be long now, as the hon. Gentleman will see.

    Suez Canal (Israeli Shipping)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further consideration the Security Council of the United Nations has given to the questions of the interference by the Egyptian Government with shipping in the Suez Canal and of the continued detention by that Government of the Israeli ship "Bat Galim"; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nutting: The Security Council last discussed the question of shipping in the Suez Canal, and the case of the "Bat Galim," on 13th January this year. The Egyptian Government had previously announced that, the" Bat Galim's" crew having been acquitted and released, they were willing to release the cargo and the ship itself. The President of the Security Council welcomed these steps so far as they went and adjourned the Council meeting. The vessel is not under detention but is awaiting collection by the Government of Israel or some authorised agent. Meanwhile the Council remains seized of the dispute.
    Her Majesty's Government have frequently made it clear that they do not accept the legality of the restrictions placed by the Egyptian Government on Israeli traffic through the Suez Canal. These restrictions are, however, part and parcel of the general state of hostility between the Arab States and Israel. The best hope of bringing them to an end, therefore, lies in improving relations between the two sides. This remains the constant purpose of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the former Foreign Secretary, when he was in opposition, urged that this was an intolerable situation, and that we should send a gunboat into the Suez Canal to solve it?
    Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir, and I also remember that the former Government subsequently took the matter to the United Nations, where it now is, which makes it a matter of international responsibility and not one for Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the" Bat Galim" is waiting to be collected by the Israeli Government, but two months have elapsed since the decision was made. Why the delay? Who was responsible for it?
    Mr. Nutting: The Israeli Government are unwilling to remove this vessel unless the Egyptian Government will allow it to continue its journey through the Canal, but the Egyptian Government are not prepared to concede that right. They have offered to release the ship and the cargo to the Government of Israel, but the Government of Israel have not so far
    1166
    responded or shown willingness to accept the vessel or to take it away.
    Mr. Shinwell: How long are the United Nations or Her Majesty's Government to tolerate this shocking violation of a United Nations decision and interference with free passage through an international highway?
    Mr. Nutting: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that traffic through the Suez Canal today is, in point of fact, at an all-time high level, and is increasing. When he talks of an unwarranted restriction of passage through the Canal, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not giving the full story. Her Majesty's Government's view on the restrictions on Israeli cargoes has been made plain inside and outside the Security Council. This dispute and this restriction arise out of the state of hostility between Israel and the Arab States, and the best hope is to bring about a settlement of that dispute, which is what Her Majesty's Government are endeavouring to do.

  THERMO-NUCLEAR WEAPONS (TEST AREAS)
  Mr. Usborneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will negotiate with other countries with a view Lo defining the areas where thermonuclear explosives may, or may not, be tested.
  Mr. Nutting: Besides ourselves there are only two other countries at present concerned with thermo-nuclear explosions, the U.S.S.R. and the United States. Up to now, the U.S.S.R. has conducted all its tests within its own territories. After their last tests in the Pacific the United States representative in the United Nations said that the United States authorities were doing everything possible to prevent any recurrence of possible danger. In these circumstances I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by negotiations on this subject.
  Mr. Usborne: Is the Minister of State aware that Sir William Penney was reported the other day as having said that 150,000 tons of water could be lifted by an atom bomb if it were exploded under water? Presumably a hydrogen bomb would raise very much more than that.

  1167
  It is now apparently legal for a nation to explode such a bomb in the North Sea. Is it not, therefore, very important that some international arrangement should be reached to decide where bombs may be so exploded, if they have to be exploded? Would it not be even better if an agreement could be reached not to explode them at all?
  Mr. Nutting: The question whether to explode them or not is not the Question upon the Order Paper. That was gone into very carefully at Question Time the other day, and also in the debate which took place upon the following day. As to where these explosions should take place, I can assure the hon. Member that they will not take place in the North Sea. I am satisfied, from the evidence available in relation to explosions that have taken place. that maximum precautions are taken by countries to ensure that the minimum of danger is caused.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The Minister gave us an assurance that these explosions will not take place in the North Sea. Has he received assurances from the Soviet Government to that effect?
  Mr. Nutting: I was, of course, speaking for, and indeed am only answerable for, Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  Major Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the inquiry by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation into the Icelandic fishing dispute.
  Lord John Hope: No, Sir. Since these confidential discussions are continuing, I regret that I cannot yet make any statement.
  Major Wall: How long is this inquiry to last?
  Lord John Hope: I think it will not last very much longer.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Is not the present state of affairs inflicting great loss on the British fishing industry, and will the Minister use his utmost endeavours to resolve
  1168
  the outstanding problems at the earliest possible moment?
  Lord John Hope: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that no time at all is being wasted; but the matter is very difficult.

  BRITISH-PROTECTED PERSONS (PASSPORTS)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which European countries discriminate between British-protected persons in possession of British passports and United Kingdom citizens.
  Lord John Hope: I presume that what the hon. Member has in mind is that British-protected persons holding United Kingdom passports are required to have visas for travel to certain countries to which holders of such passports who are British subjects can travel without visas. This differentiation is due to the fact that it has not been found possible to include protected persons, either foreign or British, in the agreements concluded with foreign countries for the abolition of visas.
  I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the long list of those countries with which Her Majesty's Government have concluded agreements for the abolition of visas.
  Mr. Sorensen: Why is it not possible? Is it not very unfair that this discrimination should exist between protected persons and ordinary citizens?
  Lord John Hope: Each sovereign Government is entitled to their own decision. There was no bitterness about this matter. "Discrimination" is not the word that should be used.
  Following is the list:

  Belgium.

  Denmark.

  Finland.

  France.

  Federal German Republic.

  Greece.

  Iceland.

  Italy.

  Luxembourg.

  Netherlands.

  Norway.

  Portugal.

  San Marino.

  Sweden.

  Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

  Turkey.

  BRITISH TRAWLER (PROSECUTION, ICELAND)
  Mr. Edward Evansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the British trawler "Churchill," out of Grimsby, was arrested on 29th March by the Icelandic authorities for alleged illegal trawling in prohibited waters; and whether he will ensure that the interests of the captain and of the owners are adequately safeguarded.
  Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir; this case, in which an appeal is pending against the judgment of an Icelandic court on 31st March, is being followed closely.
  Mr. Evans: Does the Minister share my distress and anxiety that a vessel with such a distinguished name should be held under duress? What is the amount of the fines imposed on British trawlers since the imposition of the fishing limits by the Icelandic Government? Has it not been reported to be as much as £30,000?
  Lord John Hope: No, Sir. The fine imposed was about £1,500 with costs, and confiscation of the catch and the gear.
  Mr. Evans: I imagine that the Minister has misunderstood my question. I asked how much money had been imposed upon British trawlers since the fishing limits were imposed. and the Minister gave me the figure of the fine imposed on the "Churchill".
  Lord John Hope: I did misunderstand the hon. Gentleman's question. I would like notice of it.

  TURCO-IRAQI PACT
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order that British commitments resulting from the United Kingdom's accession to the Turco-Iraqi Pact may at all times be precisely defined, he will propose to the other parties to the Pact all special agreements made or measures taken under Articles I and II of the Pact shall be made public.
  Mr. Nutting: Any agreements, commitments or obligations made or undertaken by Governments, under Article I or under Article II of the Turco-Iraqi Pact, will require to be registered with the
  1170
  Secretariat of the United Nations, and published by it in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter.
  Mr. Warbey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance, but will he say whether that is contained and made specific within the Pact?
  Mr. Nutting: It is understood that all member nations of the United Nations, on concluding any pact or agreement with any other State, whether a member of the United Nations or not, shall register that pact with the United Nations, in accordance with Article 102. Therefore, there was no need to specify it in this Pact. It is understood that it would be registered, just as our Special Agreement with Iraq will be so registered.

  COLOURED PEOPLE, GREAT BRITAIN
  Mr. M. Stewartasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the conditions of coloured persons in Great Britain.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am as yet unable to add to the replies I gave to the hon. Member's Questions on the same subject on 3rd November and 8th December.
  Mr. Stewart: Why does it take so long only to decide whether to set up a committee or not?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The setting up of the committee would raise a good deal of conjecture. Meanwhile, a large number of British subjects who are coming to this country are, on the whole, settling down pretty well.
  Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to consider the possibility of setting up a committee?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is certainly not ruled out.

  MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

    Elections (Residence Qualification)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if a person born in Singapore who has spent three years or more as a student in Great Britain is

    1171
    eligible under the electoral regulations to vote there and stand as a candidate at the coming elections; and what effect his residence in this country will have on his rights through the operation of the 10 years' residence qualification.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Anyone issued with an identity card on or before the 1st April, 1954, has been regarded as qualified to vote on residence grounds. A candidate for election must have resided in the Colony for a period of at least seven out of the last 10 years immediately before the date of his nomination for election and be resident in the Colony on that date. I cannot express an opinion on the legal interpretation of this provision, which is a matter for the courts of the Colony.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that there was a general feeling of dissatisfaction in Singapore before the election took place last Saturday, because candidates who had been in this country for three years during the previous 10 years were threatened with disqualification if they had been elected? Could the Minister now make it clear that men who have been in this country for three years out of the past 10 will be eligible to sit in the Legislature in Singapore?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that everyone, including the hon. Gentleman, might profit by reading my answer, which was very carefully considered.

    Rubber Plantations (Canteen Facilities)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that some of the newly-established villages in Malaya are situated a great distance from the rubber plantations; that the workers are now unable to go home to their meals, as was customary; and that the canteen provisions made for them to obtain meals at the place of work are not fully adequate; and whether he will take steps to assist the employers to provide better canteen facilities.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am asking the High Commissioner for a report and will write to the hon. Member when I have his reply.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that, prior to the emergency, these canteens and villages were either in the plantation area or very near to it and that
    1172
    most of the workers could go there for their meals? Now that the villages are a long way off, will he, if necessary, assist the plantation owners to provide canteen facilities for their workers?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That may be, but I am also aware that the emergency would not now be under control if there had not been these new villages.

  EAST AFRICAN CO-OPERATIVE TRAINING COLLEGE
  Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) the number of staff now with the East African Co-operative Training College; the desired establishment; and what steps are being taken to recruit extra staff;
  (2) the number of students now attending the East African Co-operative Training School from Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, respectively; and to what extent the numbers are limited by shortage of staff.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have asked the Governor of Kenya for this information, and I will write to the hon. Member on receipt of the reply.
  Mr. Beswick: While expressing appreciation of that answer, may I ask the Secretary of State whether, if the information does disclose that the college is hampered through lack of staff, he will see what extra steps can be taken to encourage the recruitment of staff?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am always anxious that this college should be a success, and when I get the information I will bear that in mind.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State seek the co-operation, which I am sure will be very willingly given, of the Co-operative movement?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a previous occasion, I told the Co-operative movement, through this House, that the door was always open, so far as I am concerned.

  NIGERIA (SENIOR CIVIL SERVICE POSTS)
  Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the outcome of the disagreement between the Executive

  1173
  Council and the Governor of Eastern Nigeria on appointments and allowances for certain senior Civil Service posts.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must apologise for the length of the answer.
  Despite protracted discussions, the disagreement arising on the Appropriation Bill between the Eastern Region Ministers and the Governor about the proposed abolition or reduction of the emoluments of certain posts has not been resolved. On 18th March, the Premier assured the House of Assembly that there would be no constitutional crisis. But on 29th March, without previous intimation to the Governor of his intention, he secured the adjournment of the House sine die although the Governor had informed him earlier that he proposed to send a message to the Speaker that day with a view to repairing the omissions in the Bill.
  The Governor will now use his powers under the Constitution to restore the position. I consider that, in the interests of the Eastern Region itself as well as of the public service, the Governor's decision to use his powers is wise, and I fully support it.
  Mrs. White: While not desiring to say anything that might make matters more difficult, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that most hon. Members in this House would also support the Governor, in so far as it is very important, in both the Eastern and Western Regions of Nigeria and in other territories of the Colonial Empire, that public servants should feel that they are being justly treated, and should not have their prospects of promotion or reasonable allowances taken away from them without due notice and consultation?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very grateful for the hon. Lady's observations. I came back from a recent tour of Nigeria determined to encourage British officers already there to stay and others to go out to Nigeria to serve there. The action now threatened has placed me in a very difficult personal position, and the action taken or proposed to be taken seems wholly at variance with the undertaking given to me by Dr. Azikiwe when I was recently in Nigeria.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: While fully supporting the action taken by the Secretary of State,
  1174
  may I ask him whether any reason was given by the Premier of Eastern Nigeria for this action, which is not in the best interests of the future of his country?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No reason, I think, which would commend itself to either side of this House.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT)
  Mr. D. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals he is considering for constitutional reform in the several smaller Colonial Territories.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Constitutional development is an individual problem in each territory, and its progress depends upon many factors, of which the size of the territory is only one. I cannot do more, in reply to a general question such as this, than re-affirm the policy, on which all parties in this House are agreed, of promoting in each territory the progressive development of self-governing institutions according to the local conditions and circumstances obtaining there from time to time.
  Mr. Jones: If, when we return after Easter—if we do return—I put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman about several of the smaller territories individually, will he be in a position to give me an answer?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will certainly answer any such Question.

  NYASALAND

    Constitutional Developments
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on constitutional developments in Nyasaland.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I regret that I am not in a position to make a statement at the moment.
    Mrs. White: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he will be able to do so, because in the meantime there is considerable conjecture on this subject, as well as on others?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am fully aware of that, and in my desire to arrive at the best possible solution, I have been forced to delay my statement for a while.

    Government Land Purchases
    Sir J. Barlowasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the quantity of land

    (I) Since 1947 the purchase of the following land has been completed:

    Vendor

    Acreage

    Price

    Date of completion of sale

    £

    British Central Africa Co.

    …

    182,493

    114,058

    December, 1952.

    Blantyre and East Africa Limited

    …

    2,848

    1,780

    May, 1954.

    L. Bruce Estates Limited

    …

    72,392

    45,245

    November, 1953.

    African Lakes Corporation Limited

    …

    35

    44

    April, 1951.

    African Lakes Corporation Limited

    …

    50

    Nil

    June, 1952.

    African Lakes Corporation Limited

    …

    74

    360

    December, 1952.

    African Lakes Corporation Limited

    …

    690

    80

    August, 1954.

    Church of Scotland Mission

    …

    121

    302

    September, 1951.

    Nchima Tea and Tung Estates Limited

    …

    3,141

    2,797

    June, 1953.

    P. S. Gill

    …

    95

    365

    May, 1953.

    Nyasa Tea Estates Limited

    …

    144

    Nil

    August, 1954.

    Nyasa Mission of Dutch Reformed Church

    …

    613

    Nil

    December, 1954.

    262,696

    £165,031

  WEST INDIES

    Jamaica (Hurricane Relief)
    Mr. Greyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what grants and loans were made to the Jamaican Government as a relief measure after the 1951 hurricane; to state in detail the purpose for which they were to be used; and if these grants and loans have now been spent.
    purchased by the Government in Nyasaland, the price given, and from whom it was purchased.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir; but, as the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the answer is long and includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    After the hurricane. Her Majesty's Government made an immediate grant of £250,000 for relief, and subsequently agreed to make available, subject to the approval of detailed schemes, a maximum of £4,600,000 in grants and loans towards the cost of reconstruction.
    Details of the reconstruction schemes and of the extent to which the moneys had been spent at the end of 1954 are given in the table below.

    U.K. AID TO JAMAICA HURRICANE (1951) RECONSTRUCTION

    Scheme

    Approved ceiling (including amendments)

    Expenditure to 31st December, 1954

    £

    £

    Agriculture

    1. Banana rehabilitation

    500,000

    500,000

    2. Coconut rehabilitation:

    (a) Insurance

    124,282

    124,282

    (b) Subsidies

    55,000

    31,885

    3. Nurseries

    45,000

    45,000

    4. Farm recovery

    805,718

    467,981

    5. Mechanical implements

    160,000

    160,000

    Housing

    6. Rural housing

    865,000

    418,770

    7. Urban housing

    702,500

    341,312

    8. Aid to lower and middle income groups

    282,500

    21,668

    9. Administration

    150,000

    150,000

    10. Emergency building supplies

    250,000

    250,000

    Education

    11. Denominational schools

    175,000

    142,401

    12. University College of the West Indies

    80,000

    80,000

    Miscellaneous

    13. Repairs to Government's roads, buildings, etc.

    395,000

    335,794

    4,590,000

    3,069,093

    NOTES:
    (1) Aid to lower and middle income groups.—Originally a sum of £400,000 was made available to help householders in the lower and middle income groups to repair and reconstruct their damaged houses. The demand for such loans has never been great. In 1952 £117,500 of the sum allocated to this scheme was transferred to the rural and urban housing schemes. In view of the large amount still unspent, it is understood that the Jamaican Government intends to put in proposals for a re-allocation to some other form of hurricane reconstruction. These are awaited.
    (2) The urban and rural housing programme was delayed by the need to set up a suitable organisation and by difficulties in acquiring sites, examining titles, etc. It is likely that all the money will eventually be spent.
    (3) The farm recovery scheme was held up mainly because of lack of planting material. The scheme will cease when all funds are spent or when the Farm Development Programme comes into operation (whichever is the earlier). It has been one of the most beneficial projects ever undertaken for the assistance of the small farmer in Jamaica.

    Turks and Caicos Islands
    Mr. Greyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make arrangements so that two Members of Parliament may visit the Turks and Caicos Islands to investigate conditions there and make a report to him.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Plans for a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to visit the Caribbean next month are now being prepared, and the possibility of a visit by two members of the delegation to the Turks and Caicos Islands, which the Governor of Jamaica and I would welcome, is being examined.

  KENYA

    Executions
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans have been executed in Kenya since the emergency began; how many of these were charged with murder; how many have been charged with capital offences each month; how many of these have been hanged; and for what offences.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: From the beginning of the Emergency to 25th March, 1955, 861 persons were executed, including 266 convicted of murder. A month by month table of executions up to the 25th February was published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 10th March—Vol. 539, c. 80. During the four-week period 26th February to 25th March, four persons were executed for murder, 1l for unlawful possession of arms and ammunition and 10 for consorting with terrorists. I am asking the Governor for month by month figures of those charged with capital offences, as opposed to those convicted and executed, and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that, of the 860 Africans who have been hanged, fewer than one-third have been charged with murder, he will speed up the modifications of these capital charges which he has frequently indicated there would be?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly have that very much in mind, but the illegal possession of arms and ammunition, and,

    1179
    indeed, consorting, may sometimes be almost as dangerous as the act of murder itself.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is likely that before we return here the date for the armistice will have been concluded in Kenya, and if he will indicate whether he is considering what is to be the future policy in Kenya in regard to the emergency?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the right hon. Gentleman will know from his past large experience, those considerations are very much in my mind, and I am never for a moment not conscious of them.

    Mau Mau Adherents (Surrender)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Mau Mau adherents who have laid down their arms in Kenya under the surrender terms.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Between 18th January and 25th March, 230 Mau Mau adherents surrendered.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of these rather disappointing figures, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the proposal, which has often been made, that conversations with Mau Mau leaders should be renewed
    1180
    by a European and an African who would be trusted by the African people?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have always made it absolutely plain that if the way is shown for large-scale surrenders any who make the preliminary move will certainly not be repulsed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he can state the business for the first week after the Recess?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Easter Recess will be as follows.
TUESDAY, 19TH APRIL—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
WEDNESDAY, 20TH APRIL, and THURSDAY, 21ST APRIL—General debate on the Budget Resolutions and the Economic Situation, which will be continued and brought to a conclusion on Monday, 25th April.
FRIDAY, 22ND APRIL—Private Members' Motions.
Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not it is proposed to take the Finance Bill in two parts?

THE PRIME MINISTER

  Tributes to Sir Winston Churchill and Welcome to Sir Anthony Eden
  Mr. C. R. Attlee: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House, before we proceed to the business of the day, to refer to the event which is in all our minds, the change of Prime Minister.
  I recall very well speaking from this Box eighteen years ago on a similar occasion when Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, relinquished the high office of Prime Minister. Today, we are parting with a Prime Minister who led this country through some of the most fateful years of its history and who has served in this House for more than fifty years. For the greater part of that time he has been one of the outstanding figures in the parliamentary arena.
  The retirement from active political life of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) does, indeed, mark the close of an epoch. He is the last survivor in this House of those who served in Queen Victoria's reign. He held high office before and during the First World War. In the length of his political career he rivals Palmerston and Gladstone. He gave a leadership to this country when it needed it most, and in history, as one of the greatest of all Prime Ministers, his place is assured.
  This is not an occasion, Sir, for an appraisal of the right hon. Gentleman's career either as a most illustrious statesman on the world stage or as a great parliamentarian. Fortunately, we were enabled to give expression to our appreciation of a great man not long ago, on his eightieth birthday. We hope that the day may be still far distant when more formal tributes will have to be paid.
  We feel, today, the loss from the Government Front Bench of a great parliamentarian whose speeches have lent lustre to our debates; and we shall also miss those witty replies which so often enlivened our debates. It was only last week that we were enjoying them. Above all, perhaps, we shall miss a familiar figure for whom, despite the many differences we may have had with him, we could not help having a warm affection.
  1182
  I do not know whether there will be occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman will address this House again, but he is now leaving the front line. He is to have a well earned rest; instead of continuing to make history we hope that he will be continuing to write it. But he carries with him the warm good wishes of us all.
  I should now like to offer to the right hon. Gentleman's successor our very sincere congratulations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir A. Eden) has had a long apprenticeship in high office and has earned the esteem of hon. Members in all parts of the House. He has, I am sure, no illusions as to the weight of the burden which he now takes up in these troublous times. We all wish him health and strength, but we on this side cannot, of course, wish him a long tenure of office. Indeed, it is our duty, as soon as opportunity offers, to try to give him a period of rest. But as a Mr. Young said to Lord Melbourne when that statesman was hesitating to accept the Premiership, "Why, damn it all, such a position was never held by any Greek or Roman, and if it only last three months it will be worth while to have been Prime Minister of England." So we are glad to congratulate him.
  Mr. David Grenfell: This is a day of leave-taking and of generous acknowledgement of great services. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) has no need of praises, but he has fully earned them and we should be very unworthy if we did not now tender our appreciation of his great service to the House and to the country.
  The right hon. Gentleman was a great statesman and leader in world affairs. I have already expressed my admiration of his broad-minded and practical attitude towards the new technical and social revolution in progress all over the world. Statesmen have a duty to lead public opinion. They have to take note of the scientific as well as the political revolutions which are extending their area of impact and their influence in world affairs. The right hon. Gentleman has made himself familiar with modern problems at home and overseas.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford has probably seen more of

  1183
  the world than most of his contemporaries in this House. He has written with great literary skill on many subjects. I had the privilege of serving in his war-time Administration as Secretary for Mines and he then won my profound admiration for his industry and determination. I am sorry that he has resigned. I wish to say "Thank you" to him, particularly for his war service, and to wish him many years of peaceful coexistence with all his well-wishers and friends.
  I should like also to support the welcome extended by my right hon. Friend to the new Prime Minister. We have known him in the House for a long time and I am sure that there can be very few here who have not been conscious of a personal esteem for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir A. Eden). The right hon. Gentleman is facing the most important responsibilities on the world stage today. We hope that he will have authority adequate to meet his responsibilities. He does not represent the same school of politics as I went to, and in which I remain, but I have a very strong personal admiration for him and a large measure of confidence in his desire to do the right thing.
  Mr. Walter Elliot: The Leader of the Opposition and the Father of the House have each spoken friendly words of welcome—at least, reasonably friendly words of welcome—to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. From this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I, through you, redouble that welcome on perhaps a more intimate note?
  My right hon. Friend the new Prime Minister is one of the very few persons obviously destined for a great post who has, in fact, eventually attained that post. So not only does the House wish him well but his party, in particular, wishes him well. He has served a long and arduous apprenticeship and he comes to his gigantic task vigorous and mature. Fortunate is the country which has such inheritors.
  My right hon. Friend succeeds one of the greatest men whom our records know. As has been said, this is not the moment to make any appraisement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford
  1184
  (Sir W. Churchill), but one has to go far back into the past to reach any comparable figure. His ancestor Marlborough stamped himself on Europe as few Englishmen—indeed, few Europeans—have done, and he became a legend. When Napoleon was watching the rout of all his armies, it was the tune of the song about Marlborough, that legendary figure, that rose to his lips. Here is one who has surpassed him. He has become a legend while still alive, and not in Europe only.
  Despite our rule against commemorating anyone in this House until he has been dead for ten years, it is already more than ten years since, by common consent. the very gateway to our Chamber was christened the Churchill Arch. We, for all our parliamentary lives, have risen and sat down with this legend. To us he is flesh and blood, the most human of men. His rolling eloquence and his irreverent quips have been familiar to us in Parliament, generation after generation.
  Last night Lord Samuel, on the radio. compared my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford to Shakespeare's Henry V at Agincourt and also, a little inappropriately I thought, to Hamlet, to the melancholy Jaques and even to Puck. But none of these had his humour. There is only one other Shakespearian figure appropriate in this context, and that is Falstaff himself. If, by some alchemy. we could melt down these two figures, Falstaff and Henry V, into a single man, we would get a figure comparable to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford, not merely because of his humour but because of that enormous zest, that gusto of life and experience, that common humanity.
  We would also get that power of transition which is one of the chief characteristics and one of the greatest charms of the right hon. Member for Woodford. It is, for example, the outstanding feature of his oratory. When he said:
  "Give us the tools and we will finish the job"
  one sometimes forgets the build-up of the noble phrases before he came to those hammer blows of monosyllables. When he began, he said:
  "We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down."

  1185
  Having so built up, then came the 10 blows of these great Anglo-Saxon monosyllables.
  The House has today lost one of the greatest Front Benchers in all its history, and in that we are all the poorer. But the back benchers have gained the greatest back bencher of all time. By this at least we can say that each of us is ennobled; and all the House enriched.
  Mr. John Maclay: On this occasion my National-Liberal and Conservative colleagues on this bench would wish me to join in welcoming the Prime Minister and in offering him our congratulations and our warmest good wishes. The right hon. Gentleman has already given many years of hard and devoted service not only to our own nation, but to the whole civilised world. In recent months some of us have seen for ourselves his personal intervention change, in a matter of days, a situation that was producing something close to despair in the hearts of a great many people in the nations of free Europe into one of optimism and constructive hope.
  The contribution that the right lion. Gentleman has already made to the maintenance of peace is one which must give confidence in his ability to lead our nation, at a time when, possibly more than ever before in time of peace, Britain's leadership may well determine the fate of free Western civilisation. We wish him well, and, not unnaturally, we wish him a long period of office.
  We would also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). It is beyond my power to express adequately our feelings. All I would add to what has already been said so effectively is to express our profound gratitude for having had the privilege of serving under his leadership in time of war and in more recent years.
  For myself—and, I believe, for countless others, not all of whom may invariably have agreed with him—the knowledge over the years that my right hon. Friend has been there has been a continuing source of strength and comfort, above all in moments of doubt or anxiety. I find it difficult to contemplate a world without that knowledge. Fortunately, it is not necessary to do so. In fact, so long as those who have known that source of
  1186
  strength are living, they will be conscious of it, as will our successors, and history will confirm that our values have been wisely placed.
  Mr. Donald Wade: In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who has asked me to say how very greatly he regrets his inability to be here today, I should like to add a few words of tribute to one whom the Leader of the Opposition has rightly described as the outstanding figure of our parliamentary life, and, if I may say so, also one who is beloved by the whole House.
  I cannot claim to have had the privilege of close association with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), either in office or out of office, a privilege which many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have, I know, enjoyed. I can speak only as a very humble Member of the House and a comparatively young one. If, for that reason, my remarks are very brief, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they are none the less sincere.
  As a very small boy I can just remember the late Percy Illingworth, who was a member of Mr. Asquith's Government and a near relative of my father, speaking in glowing terms of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Member for Woodford. It seemed to me in those days that he had already lived a very full and colourful life. Through the eyes of a small boy, it seemed that he had already well-nigh reached the zenith of a brilliant career; and yet, as we know, there were still forty years and more to unfold.
  Today, the right hon. Gentleman is still full of vigour. Thank God for that. Last week we had evidence of it. We saw that puckish smile, if I may so describe it, the sparkling eyes, and we heard the sparkling replies. Even if I had the gift of words, no eloquence of mine could adequately convey the deep affection which this House has for this great man. May I therefore simply say what is in the minds of many outside the House as well as many within it? It is that we hope he will enjoy a well-deserved holiday and a well-earned rest, and that when he returns we shall have the joy of seeing him here for many more days to come.

  1187
  Before I sit down, may I add my congratulations to the new Prime Minister? We wish him good health in the heavy burden which he has accepted. He has given much of his life to arduous and patient work in the cause of peace and, whatever our political views may be, I am sure that we most earnestly desire that the untiring efforts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir A. Eden) in the cause of peace will ere long bear fruit.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): I must, first, try to acknowledge the very generous words which have been used by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and all those who have spoken in the House this afternoon—in well-deserved terms—about my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Attlee) rightly said that this is not the time for us to appraise my right hon. Friend's work. For one thing, he is, fortunately, still among us; and we all know quite well that whenever he returns to us from his holiday he will still be the dominating figure among us.
  But while we admit that this is not the time for such an appraisal, perhaps the House would permit me a very few words on this subject, because for more than sixteen years we have been so intimately associated in political work, and, as it so happens, I have never spoken about this before. As I reflect over those years, and think of them in the terms of what we yet have to do, certain lessons seem to me to stand out for us in the message of what we have done.
  First, I think, in work, was my right hon. Friend's absolute refusal, as his War Cabinet colleagues knew so well, to allow any obstacles, however formidable, to daunt his determination to engage upon some task. With that, courage; and the courage which expresses itself not only in the first enthusiastic burst of fervour but which is also enduring, perhaps the rarer gift of the two.
  1188
  Although my right hon. Friend has perhaps the widest and most varied interests in life of any man we are likely to know—and that is true—I still think that his great passion was the political life and that he brought to the service of it a most complete vision. No man I have ever known could so make one understand the range of a problem and, at the same time, go straight to its core. I believe that in statesmanship that will be the attribute which many who knew him would place first among his many gifts.
  Apart from these things, in spirit there was the magnanimity, most agreeable of virtues; and, let us be frank about it, not one which we politicians find it always easy to practise, although we should all like to do so. In part, perhaps, this was easier with him, because I think he always thought of problems not in abstract terms but in human values; and that was one of the things which endeared him to all this House.
  Finally, as has been so well said, there was the humour—the humour based on the incomparable command of the English language, which was so often our delight, not least at Question Time. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be deeply moved by the things which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have said of him this afternoon, for he loves this House—loves it in companionship and in conflict.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and others have been kind in their welcome to me. I enjoyed very much the Melbourne reflections. The right hon. Gentleman, with his deep knowledge of history, will not, however, have forgotten that Melbourne, although always talking of leaving office, contrived to stay there for a very long time indeed. But I have no desire, I beg him to believe, to emulate that in its entirety. For the rest, I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Father of the House, too, that I have been deeply touched by what has been said this afternoon and that, for my part, I will do all I can to serve our country.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY
  Mr. G. Longden: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 22nd April, I shall call attention to the need for a North Atlantic Assembly, and move a Resolution.
  FLYING BOATS (USE)
  Brigadier Clarke: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 22nd April, I shall call attention to the need to bear in mind the possible future use of flying boats, and move a Resolution.
  UNIVERSITY GRANTS
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 22nd April, I shall call attention to the need to improve university grants and to make them uniform, and move a Resolution.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings of the Committee on Rating and Valuation [Money] and on the British Museum Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock: and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]
  ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)
  House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 19th April.—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RATING AND VALUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS BILL)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.1 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
  We are approaching the final stages of an important operation and this Bill is necessary to that approach. This is the fourth Measure on rating that the House has had before it in the last seven years and, though the course of events will be familiar to most hon. Members, perhaps I should say a word or two on that point.
  The first was the Local Government Act, 1948, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and laid the foundations of the present system. That transferred responsibility for revaluation from local authorities to the Inland Revenue. It also provided for the first post-war revaluation—the first for 20 years. I find, as a matter of interest, that it is exactly 20 years to this day when the valuation lists now current in London came into force. That is a measure of the distance between valuations.
  That Measure envisaged revaluation in 1952, or 1953, but in the event that proved impracticable. The second Measure, introduced in 1952 by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, postponed the event. The third Measure, also introduced by my right hon. Friend, amended certain provisions of the 1948 Act which had not proved workable in practice. I must confess that in reading such parts of those enactments as I felt necessary in preparation for this task I came to the conclusion that experts on rating are born, not made.
  We have now reached this fourth Measure, the need for which was foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence just over a year ago. Giving notice of it, he said:
  "I have just made an Order postponing the coming into force of the new list until 1st April, 1956. While the revaluation could be completed on an earlier date on the present basis, I considered it essential to simplify the statutory procedure for appeals and to provide

  1191
  for certain other improvements, such as a new method of rating gas boards before the lists are finally deposited. There is not sufficient time in the present Session for the legislation required.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 188.]
  This Bill provides for certain things which our final preparations have shown to be necessary and to meet certain difficulties which were not anticipated seven years ago. It brings up-to-date and lubricates parts of the machinery which were designed in 1948 and which will shortly be brought into action.
  I think we may regret, but we cannot fairly resent, the need for yet another Bill on this subject. We are approaching the culminating point of seven years' work. Just a year hence the new system of revaluation begins. Both sides of the House have contributed to this work, so have a host of public officials; and it may not be out of place for me to pay a brief tribute to the work of the officials of the Inland Revenue Department, who have been working for a number of years to meet this point.
  Before proceeding to say what the Bill will do, perhaps I should say one or two things about what it will not do. It does not touch at all on the issue of re-rating. It does not deal with the question of equalisation grants. It does not alter the basis for valuing the main classes of property. Some of those matters may be very much in the minds of hon. Members and we may hear echoes of them in the course of this debate, but they are completely outside the scope of this Bill. I find that there is ample substance for my task in the provisions of the Bill alone.
  There are three principal matters in the Bill with which I should deal first. They are: the procedure for the publication of the valuation lists; the method of rating gas boards; and certain exemptions from rates. For the gas boards, arrangements contained in the Bill were agreed between the local authority associations and the gas boards towards the end of 1953. The nationalisation of the gas industry necessitated a revised method of assessing premises. In effect, the new system takes the total rateable value of properties occupied by the gas boards in May, 1949. It applies to it annually a formula calculated from the number of therms sold by each board and then apportions the adjusted rateable value
  1192
  of the boards among the rating areas concerned. That will be retrospective to 1st April, 1952, and it will entail adjustments to the Exchequer Equalisation Grants and the rates paid by gas boards for the period 1952–53 to 1955–56.
  The second major matter concerns the qualified exemption provided by the Bill to church and chapel halls. Perhaps I might say a word about the background of this matter. Churches and chapels are already exempt from rates. Church halls are legally rateable in practice—not uniform practice, I should add. They are given nominal, sympathetic assessment by rating authorities. Clearly, on the new basis whereby the Inland Revenue becomes responsible for a uniform standard, such informal arrangements could not continue. There is an obvious need for statutory exemption.
  The Bill exempts halls used by religious organisations in connection with the church or chapel and provides for a limited assessment where they are let for profit to other bodies. We also thought it right to give local authorities the right to remit or to reduce rates on hereditaments occupied for charitable purposes and occupied by non-profit-making organisations whose objects are religious, educational, or philanthropic. I am aware that at this stage, and certainly at later stages, hon. Members will be concerned with the limits of these provisions. For instance, I know that some hon. Members are already concerned with the question of sports grounds and that they also have other matters in mind. I want to stress that we are aware of those feelings, but I do not want to prejudice discussion at a later stage by too wide generalisations now.
  I now come to the third question which is the alteration of the procedure for the publication of draft valuation lists. I think it will be accepted that after 20 years many changes in assessment are inevitable. Under the 1948 Act, the draft lists would be open to public inspection for a period of three weeks in the autumn. That would tell the ratepayer the amount of his new assessment. But under that system, he would not have the figure which principally concerns him, namely, the rate which he would have to pay.
  If the ratepayer judged the situation by the assessment, which in these circum

  1193
  stances would be the only figure available to him, there would be a strong likelihood of appeal, if only as a precautionary measure. Further, with a rise in the general level of assessments, there would be a strong likelihood of many appeals. Therein lay a serious danger—and I stress it—of clogging the machine in the initial stages. Quite obviously, a flood of appeals based on the assessment could have a serious effect upon the working of the machine at the early stage.
  I stress that danger because it is a real one, and one which had to be met. It has been met by abolishing the draft list procedure. Rating authorities will receive their lists by the end of December, will calculate the 1d. rate product, and will make their preparations thereafter. But the list will be open to inspection only when it comes into force or when the first rates are made by reference to it. That will be approximately 1st April, or just before.
  I should stress that the ratepayer loses nothing by this procedure. That is important. If he objects, he will not have to pay, until the assessment is finally settled, more than he was paying. If he secures a revision, that will be retrospective to 1st April. But, even with this precaution, we must anticipate a substantial number of objections when the final figure is known. We recognised that, and, therefore, it seemed essential that the statutory procedure should be as simple and as expeditious as possible.
  I must say that I exercise great caution in claiming in any reform in this field that it may lead to simplification. That is a claim which has been made on earlier occasions in relation to rating Measures, and one which has not, perhaps, always been justified by events. However, it is fair to say that a considerable weight of administration is relieved by this procedure, particularly on the ratepayer himself.
  The effect on the aggrieved ratepayer will be to provide that when he has made his proposal, and if it is not, as it were, settled out of court in his favour, he need take no further steps to get his case before the local valuation court. Under the new provisions, it will go forward automatically. If there is no agreement, the local valuation officer will forward the papers automatically.
  1194
  There is one other matter to which I think I should specifically refer. It is a little more complicated, relatively, but it bears upon the pool payment. Under Part V of the 1948 Act, the British Transport Commission makes each year a lump sum payment instead of paying rates on railway and canal properties. This is known as the "pool payment." Section 56 of the 1948 Act provides that where the advertising rights are let out, those rights are to be separately assessed. By "let out," I mean let to interests other than the railway interest. That is not yet in force, but it was intended that it should come into operation on revaluation.
  It has become quite clear that there would here be involved the most considerable task for valuation officers in respect of the railways. They would have to assess a multitude of hoardings under the Commission's control which were used for displaying other people's advertisements. More than that, they would have to keep them under close review in case of alteration, and the results, in terms of revenue, would be relatively small. Therefore, the Bill provides, for the time being, that all British Transport Commission hoardings will continue to be covered by pool payments.
  I should add that these pool payments cover not only the Transport Commission, but also the property of the British Electricity Authority. The local authorities and other parties concerned have requested that there should be a review of these payments. We propose, therefore, to carry out a general review of the provisions of Part V in the first year of the new valuation lists.
  It can be done in the light of the general revaluation of property, and will include both transport and electricity provisions. Therefore, pending that, all questions on the mode of payment are in suspense. There will, of course, be consultation between the bodies concerned and the local authorities. The exact scope of this review will be determined a little later.
  Finally, there is one other matter to which, for the convenience of the House, I think I should refer at this stage. A great many hon. Members will be aware of the anxiety expressed by certain trade organisations lest revaluation should throw an unfair burden upon them. In response to earlier representation made last year, my right hon. Friend made a

  1195
  statement to the House on 6th December last. Since the publication of this Bill, there have, as I have every reason to know, been further representations, of which many hon. Members will be aware.
  It is apparent that the main source of anxiety is a misapprehension that the new procedure in this Bill for abolishing draft lists makes it impossible for my right hon. Friend to implement the undertaking which he gave at the end of his statement on 6th December. It is important, at this stage, to recall the exact words used by my right hon. Friend on that occasion. He said:
  "As I have explained, there are many uncertain factors in the situation; and, consequently, we cannot yet be sure how the new basis of assessment will work out in practice. I can, however, give an assurance that, as soon as the effects of forthcoming revaluation can be fully measured, the Government will review the position and will consider whether any changes are necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 21.]
  Some people have taken this to mean that the effect of revaluation would be reviewed as soon as the draft lists were available, that is to say, in October, 1955, and that, presumably, any changes which it was thought desirable to make could be made between then and 1st April, 1956. I can only say that that timetable was never contemplated. All through it has been quite clear that it would be wholly impossible between October and December, when the lists have to go to the local authorities, to change the basis of valuation and then to prepare new valuation lists.
  I wish to underline, therefore, that the new provisions relating to the valuation lists in no way invalidate the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend on 6th December. The promise which he made then stands.
  Mr. W. T. Proctor: Is it not as clear as anything can possibly be that this basis will turn out to be very unfair to shop owners? Why should we delay putting that grievance right? Their properties will be valued on present-day values as against other properties valued on 1939 values, while the whole of the very large properties will be derated altogether.
  Mr. Deedes: I want to be careful not to give an answer further to confuse a situation which has already become a
  1196
  little confused, but the answer, I can assure the hon. Member, is given most fully in the statement my right hon. Friend made. It is premature to make the assumption which the hon. Member made. I think that if he will refer to the statement of my right hon. Friend he will see that the answer is there given.
  Mr. Victor Collins: Can the hon. Gentleman say, if not in precise terms, in broad terms, how it is proposed to implement this assurance if the Bill is passed and Clause 1 comes into effect? What are to be the means to be employed? Will they be legislative, or will they be regulations? In what way, if it is necessary to make changes, will they be made?
  Mr. Deedes: Quite clearly, until we can see the effects of this revaluation, it would be most unwise to predict the form of the review or the course it might take, and I do not want to be led any farther into this matter at this stage. I have tried to underline the assurance of my right hon. Friend, and I do not want to go beyond that at this stage.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: The people who are objecting are raising the right of examination of the draft list. That is what they are worried about, because they anticipate that it will considerably increase their valuations. The general opinion is that that will be so. Though I do not agree that it will necessarily be harmful not to have the right of search, examination and appeal, is it not true that the objectors, who are, in the main, small shopkeepers and people of that class, are worried about the apparent denial of the right of appeal?
  Mr. Deedes: The hon. Member is quite right. That was the point I was trying to meet in what I have just said. It is true that there is the fear that it will invalidate the statement made by my right hon. Friend, and I have tried to show that it will not.
  I have tried not only to explain some of the main provisions of the Bill, but to give a little of the perspective of a long and difficult task which is now very nearly concluded.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: There is grave anxiety expressed by water boards about the effect of Clause 4 (8). Could the hon. Gentleman give us some information about that?
  Mr. Deedes: I will certainly say a word, if it would be convenient to the hon. Gentleman, on that point. It is quite true that there have been some apprehensions expressed about it by the interests concerned. The fact is, broadly speaking, that the use of the notional sinking fund had reached a point at which some action was considered to be essential, and the Bill provided an opportunity for taking that action.
  Without this provision the undertakings would, perhaps, not suffer what they have said they fear they will suffer, but they might secure an unwarrantable reduction of assessments because of a fall in poundage. Their position has been compared with the position of the electricity and railway undertakings, and it has been feared that it would be unfavourable in relation to these two. I have already said that the pool payment system is to be reviewed. I would add only this, that the Association of Municipal Corporations, which have something at stake in this in relation to water, has supported this provision to relation to sinking funds.
  I have no doubt that, inevitably, there are many points of detail on this and other matters with which hon. Gentlemen will be concerned. I think that it will probably be found that most of them will be best dealt with in Committee. The Bill is. admittedly, rather complex, but it is necessary for the completion of our work, and I hope that the House will accept it in that light and agree to give it a Second Reading.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: As the Parliamentary Secretary has just indicated, in a Second Reading debate it is usual to keep to broad principles, and to leave matters of detail to the Committee on the Bill. I shall try to keep to broad principles, but, as the hon. Gentleman has also said, this is a complex Bill in which there are many provisions of detail, and, therefore, if we are to keep our debate within the scope of the Bill—and sometimes a debate on Second Reading of a Bill seems to stray outside the scope of that Bill—we must, inevitably, deal with some matters of detail which may be considered Committee points, though, of course, we shall not deal with them in so minute detail as we shall when the Bill is in Committee.
  1198
  Clause 1 deals with the abolition of Part III of the 1948 Act and, therefore, the abolition of the draft list. I must say, as one with some experience of local government, that the provision in that Clause is attractive. The ratepayer on the domestic hereditament is much more concerned with what he pays in pounds, shillings and pence than he is with the rateable value on a local authority's rate book, and if the rateable value is doubled he immediately calculates the increased rateable value at the existing rate poundage; then the balloon goes up and he puts in his appeal, but if he gets the rate demanded by the rate poundage of the valuation and finds that he is not going to pay more than a shilling or two more than he was, he just smiles and pays up.
  Mr. Collins: If the ratepayer also happens to be the owner, and even if his rates are only a shilling more if the assessment is doubled, the doubling of the assessment under Schedule A will cause him to squeal.
  Mr. Lindgren: Schedule A is for Income Tax purposes, but whether we are dealing with incomes or net rateable value we should be fair.
  Whereas we are valuing domestic properties at 1939 values, which are unreal in relation to present day conditions—and I do not altogether envy the valuers taking into account 1939 values—the ordinary ratepayer is concerned with what he pays in rates, and if the ratepayer finds that he is not going to pay very much more, he will not appeal and, therefore, there is the possibility of a decrease in the number of appeals. That means that there will not be that clogging up of the machine to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. The Parliamentary Secretary quite rightly said that, otherwise, it would have been clogged up.
  Under the 1953 Act the basis of rating under the 1948 Act for domestic purposes is changed. Domestic premises were to be on the 1939 values, but shops and business premises were kept at current values. I think that the current value is much the better basis on which to work, but, taking these two things into account, the shopkeepers feel that they have a grievance, particularly, of course, as they have found out that industry has been derated. It has taken chambers of trade a long while to find that derating has been in progress in agriculture and industry. That,

  1199
  of course, creates a problem. In addition, it is not unfair for the shopkeeper to assume that, assessed on current rentable value, his rateable value will be increased considerably and, as there has been no revaluation since 1934, that is likely to be higher than the increased valuation of domestic properties.
  We all know of the campaign on this subject which started last year. As a result of that campaign. the Minister made a statement in the House on 6th December and he also made a statement in very similar terms to the chambers of commerce when he met a deputation from them. I want to make the point to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister that the Minister knew the provisions of the Bill when he made that statement to the House and to the deputation, but neither the deputation nor the House knew of these provisions at that time. I do not think, therefore. that the Minister can complain very much if the chambers of commerce, and perhaps some hon. Members, charge him with being a little slick in making a statement of which he knew the meaning at a time when he knew that other people thought it meant something else.
  The chambers of commerce and the House were quite right in assuming that the review of valuations would take place when the draft lists were published. Shopkeepers were quite reasonable in assuming that, and in assuming that they would have an opportunity of objecting before the valuation became a fact and rates were payable on the basis of it. In those circumstances, I think that the chambers of commerce are justified in believing that they have a grievance.
  The effect of this provision on local authority finances, particularly in the first year or two, is likely to be quite serious, because what is likely to happen is that the local authority, on receipt of the list from the valuation department will make arrangements for calculating its rate product and will levy its rate in the light of the product from the new valuation. One must bear in mind that it is not unusual in many towns for 25 per cent. of the rateable value to be represented by shops, business premises and industrial hereditaments.
  While I think that it is true that, as a result of Clause 1, a large number of domestic ratepayers who, otherwise,
  1200
  would have appealed, will not appeal, because they will see the effect of rateable value on rate poundage, the chambers of commerce and shopkeepers will be more inclined to appeal. First, they will be more inclined to appeal because their rateable values are likely to be increased to a greater degree than the rateable values of domestic properties. Secondly, they will be more inclined to appeal because they will feel that they have a grievance about the fact that they have not had an opportunity to appeal on publication of the draft lists.
  It is true, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that if they appeal they will not be in any worse position from their own point of view, because they will only pay rates equivalent to the amount they paid in the previous year pending the result of the appeal, but the local authority will have levied a rate anticipating a larger income from a lower rate poundage but a higher rateable value. Therefore, if there are objections on a large scale and taking a long time to go to appeal, the local authority, pending the result of the appeal, will find its income greatly reduced and will be placed in a difficult position.
  Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Surely that is not so. Is it not the fact that local authorities split their rates into two halves, so that if they levy a rate of 20s. in the £it is the invariable custom to levy 10s. in the £the first half of the year and 10s. in the £for the second half? Therefore, if the situation to which the hon. Member refers comes about, it will be quite easy in the second half of the financial year for the local authority to adjust the rate to take care of that situation.
  Mr. Lindgren: Surely the hon. and gallant Member knows better than that. Surely he knows from his experience of local government in the Borough of Ilford that a yearly rate is made but is levied in two parts. It used to be done and in some cases it may still be done, but I know of no local authority which makes a half-yearly rate.
  Mr. J. A. Sparks: Not even Ilford.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: There is no legal obligation upon a local authority to levy all the rate in one year. It can do it by half-years if it wishes.
  Mr. Lindgren: The local authorities do that. They levy half-yearly, but they make a yearly rate. It is for the ease and convenience of the ratepayer that the rate is split. It is equally true that the rate is payable on demand, but we know that very few rate assessments are paid on demand.
  If, after a local authority had made the rate there was a large number of appeals it would mean that the appellants would be paying rates at the previous year's rate, pending that appeal, and, therefore, the local authority would suffer a considerable reduction in revenue. This is local government election year. I make no party point because what I am about to refer to happens with all types of local authorities. It is not unknown in a local government election year for local authorities to use existing balances to reduce the rates or maintain them at existing levels. This year throughout the country. there has been a raiding of balances and there is now less in the kitty than would have been otherwise. Therefore, the local authorities will not have a great deal to draw upon from their working balances.
  My next point relates to Clause 4 (4) and the Second Schedule, and has some relationship to the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins). As far as I can see, the allowances for which provision is made in the Second Schedule are re-enactments, but the revaluation will bring smaller properties, in particular, out of one category into another and will work very unfairly against the small property owner and the tenant of the small house.
  Taking a house which now has a rateable value of £20, it is not unfair to assume that on 1939 valuation and increased assessment the rateable value will become £40. On a gross rateable value of £20 the net rateable value was £12, but when the gross rateable value goes up to £40 the net rateable value becomes £30. Therefore, while there is only a 100 per cent. increase in gross rateable value there is an increase of two and a half times in the net rateable value, from £12 to £30.
  If one takes a larger type house of a present gross rateable value of £50, that gross value goes up to £100 but the net rateable value, which was £40 on the old
  1202
  gross of £50, becomes £80 on the new gross rateable value of £100. One sees. therefore, that in the case of the larger property the gross and the net rateable values go up in ratio, but in the case of the smaller types of property they go up out of ratio.
  This will be quite serious in some ways from the point of view of local authorities because, on the average throughout the country—and this was certainly the case with the local authority with which I had close association for a long time—the vast majority of these properties were of £20 gross rateable value and £12 net rateable value. Taking 1939 values on the houses which I can think of at the moment under the control of that authority, I imagine they are most likely to go up £30 on the 1939 amount. That will mean they will go up 50 per cent. on the gross amount, but their net amount will become £22, so that on that they will have gone up nearly double. It is equally true that it shows only a reduction of £8 as between the gross and the net value, and, personally, I do not think that that is anywhere near sufficient to deal with the general cost of repairs.
  Local authority housing, excluding the cost of interior decorations which most local authorities are not doing, is now costing from £12 to £15 a year. The reason we had a bigger difference between the gross and the net amounts under the old schedule, was that it was recognised that the smaller, mass produced, more cheaply constructed dwelling cost more to maintain than the better built and architecturally supervised house with a higher rateable valuation. The local authorities and the small property owner will be under a disadvantage under this Bill in the change in rateable values. When we come to the Committee stage, I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will want the Governments to look at the subject from that point of view.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) raised the question of water undertakings under Clause 4 (8). Most hon. Members of the House have had representations made to them by the British Waterworks Association. As the Parliamentary Secretary said in reply to the interjection by my hon. Friend, there is a movement away from the allowance for the sinking fund.

  1203
  Taking the average cost of works for renewal and renewing over a period, it is likely to have a substantial effect upon local authorities. It means a fluctuating valuation, and where there is a fluctuating valuation in water undertakings there will be fluctuating water charges. This, of course, is unfair on the domestic consumer and it is even more unfair on the large-scale industrial consumer. It is not indicated in Clause 4 (8) over what period of time the average is to be taken. Is it to be taken every five years or 10 years or 15 years?
  If, in fact, it is to be a longer period then I am ready to admit that there is something in the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary. Those of us in local government who have had association with water undertakings know that there can be a long period when the undertaking is trouble-free. Then, as in one's home, everything seems to go wrong at once; and bill after bill pours in. The old sinking fund scheme was a very sound financial method of dealing with such an emergency. To move to a short period of averages will be unfair to the water undertakings and most unfair to the consumers.
  Far more than with the actual change, I am concerned with the method adopted and why. It has been apparent to the British Waterworks Association from their consultations with the Inland Revenue Department that its valuers have had instructions for a long time to adopt this new method when valuing. The Association, naturally, has been protesting against it as being outside the existing law, which has been in operation since 1836. If it has been in operation since that time that is no reason why it should not be changed in 1956. But it appears to have provided a period of stability over a long number of years.
  When it was approached in this method the Inland Revenue Department adopted the view that it has often done before. It invited the Association to take a test case to the Land Tribunal. In effect, it said, "This is what we are doing and we ask you to make a test case of it." So a test case was taken, and it concerned the Birmingham water undertaking—a very fine undertaking, as I have reason to know because of my wartime association with it. Birmingham went to
  1204
  the tribunal on appeal, and that appeal is now under consideration. The case is still being heard so the decision has not yet been announced. That case was taken on the invitation of the Inland Revenue, yet we now find that legislation is presented in this House to legalise a practice which the Inland Revenue was advised or instructed to adopt without the authority of the law.
  I do not want to use the words "sharp practice," but I think it is wrong to change the method when it is challenged, and particularly when the persons challenging it were invited to go to appeal. I hope the Minister will tell us why it has now been decided to bring in legislation while the appeal is being heard.
  I want now to say a word about Clause 5, and the new arrangements in the case of gas board undertakings. All of us associated with local government will welcome that there has been a settlement after very long-drawn-out negotiations and discussions. But it is far from satisfactory. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it had been accepted by the local government associations. I can speak with the sanction of two of them, two important ones, the County Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association. I am assured that the settlement was only made so that some progress could be made in negotiating, and so far as they are concerned they will continue to press for a quinquennial reconsideration of valuation.
  I object to this because it is tied to 1949 values, which, because of the lack of valuation, really means 1934 values. I ask quite plainly why the gas boards, even though they are nationalised, should have their rateable value decided on 1949 values when domestic, business, shop, and industrial hereditaments have to face revaluation in the light of current values. I do not see why the boards should be isolated from the general effect of revaluation.
  Equally, I agree with the local authorities that there should be this quinquennial revaluation. The first five years will be up in March, 1957, and then there will be opportunity then for this to be reviewed. The Minister recently made a statement in the House on the reorganisation of local government during the course of which he said that there would have to be a review of local government finances. This is the

  1205
  first Bill which has come before the House since the Minister made that statement, only a few days ago, and the effect of this provision for gas boards on the finances of local authorities is in a direction which local authorities do not want.
  Let us assume that the rateable value throughout the country will be doubled as a result of revaluation. If that is so, we are entitled to assume also that the rate poundage will be reduced by one half because the two things must tie up.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: They never do.
  Mr. Lindgren: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that they never do. That is because increased responsibilities are constantly being placed upon local authorities without an adequate review of local government finance.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: Does my hon. Friend think that local authorities will resist the obvious temptations of this situation?
  Mr. Lindgren: I am tempted to reply as a Minister would do, by saying that I will not be drawn. However, as a good local authority man, I agree that there is a big temptation at the time of estimating and rate making to make the rate meet, what it is felt the local ratepayers will bear, by dealing with arrears of essential work when the necessary money is available.
  One is entitled to assume that by doubling the rateable value the rate poundage is halved. If that is so, it means that under this arrangement for the gas boards they will be relieved of half their rates, and it will mean a loss in revenue to the local authorities of nearly £2 million. A review of financial arrangements which brings the finance of local authorities down by £2 million is not the kind of review that they will like.
  The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the arrangements for the British Electricity Authority and for the railways under the British Transport Commission. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, they are governed by Part V of the 1948 Act, under which all the rateable value is taken out of the rate book and there is a payment into a pool. Those standard payments are varied up or down according to the average level of rate poundage throughout the country.
  1206
  Again let us assume, as I did for the gas boards, that rateable value is doubled and rate poundage is reduced by a half'. Because of the fixed standard for the Electricity Authority and for the railways under the Transport Commission, this again means that both the B.T.C. and the B.E.A. will pay only half the rates. I know that is over-simplifying the matter, because, in the case of electricity there is a slight variation on units of electricity sold, but on the actual pool payments, which are based on 1948 value, these bodies will pay only half rates.
  The B.E.A. and the B.T.C. pay into the pool £17½ million a year. If rate poundage is halved those two organisations will be saved nearly £9 million, and if we add that to the £2 million from the gas boards, local authorities will be £11 million down, which is serious from a local authority point of view.
  I am an enthusiast for nationalisation. Equally, I am an enthusiast for local government, but I cannot see why the British Electricity Authority, British Railways and the gas boards should be excluded from the general provisions of revaluation and, as a result of a higher rate being placed upon other people, should have their rate reduced by one half. I admit that so far as the B.E.A. and the B.T.C. are concerned, this will not come into effect for a year because the rate is levied on the average rate poundage for the previous year, which means that for 1956 to 1957, at least, local authorities are covered.
  It is true that under Section 14 of the 1948 Act there is a requirement that in the first year of the new valuation and in every fifth subsequent year there should be an investigation into the working of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant. In that investigation the amount paid under the arrangement in Part V must also be taken into account. I doubt, however, whether that wording is wide enough to include a revision of the global sums payable by the B.E.A. and by the B.T.C. That is one point we must look at in Committee because, on a basis of equity, it is obvious that those global sums should be revised.
  Now I come to Clause 6 (3, b), which deals with places of religious worship to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. I believe that the provisions in

  1207
  the Bill will lead to acrimonious discussion between local authorities and religious bodies. The proposal is that if the cost of providing heating and services for lettings is of a greater value than the income from the lettings, no gross value for rating purposes shall be ascribed to the hereditament. Now that is a big temptation even to a church, and obviously those concerned will try to make their costs such as to exceed their revenue.
  I have had discussions about this kind of property over a number of years and my experience is that, because such premises are maintained by people in an honorary and voluntary capacity, detailed accounts are not kept. A local authority which was really doing its job properly under this Clause would require detailed accounts of lighting and heating as applied to such lettings, and without adequate bookkeeping on that basis there will be much discussion which could lead to considerable disagreement.
  Clause 6 (4) gives power to remit or to reduce rates. I think that local authorities should have power of discretion as a general rule, but in this case it is unwise to allow them too much discretion. It means that on the basis of educational or philanthropic work the local authorities will be able either to remit or to reduce rates. This will mean, inevitably, that a national organisation operating under various local authorities will receive different treatment as between one local authority and another and I do not think that is good.
  Interpretation also comes into the question. For instance, I can imagine my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) and myself disagreeing about the educational value of a boys' club where the emphasis is on boxing. As a local authority, my tendency would be to include it within education and to give it a little help, whereas other people might object. Equally this must be on a yearly basis, because rates can only be remitted or reduced on that basis. Again there may be a change in the complexion of a council, as had been happening in the last few days, and as a result there may be a different conception as to what is philanthropic and what is educational and of value to the area, with a cones-
  1208
  quent change in the treatment of an organisation.
  I feel, therefore, that this is one case in which there ought to be a general rule laid down for guidance so that all kinds of organisations can know that they will receive fair treatment as between one area and another. In addition, these remissions are being made by local rating authorities. Although two-thirds of the rate is county rate, the county council, which is using the major portion of the rate, is to have no say in whether or not there shall be any remission.
  In Clause 7 (1) we have the exemptions for structures housing invalid chairs. This is a question of principle. According to my reading of the Bill, the reason for the exemption of these structures is that they are owned by the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Pensions. I put the question plainly and bluntly: is that the reason for exempting these structures from rates? Or is it because they house invalid chairs used by people who have been disabled?
  If it is the first, as the Bill says, and they are exempt because they belong to the Ministry, then I see no reason whatever for which a property owned by a Ministry and tenanted by a third party should be exempt from rates. If, on the other hand, it is that the Government want to help the disabled, as they have been helped by the provision of the chair and the structure, then I would point out that we have already provided cash payments for petrol and cash payments for the taxation of the vehicle, and if we want to help the disabled person and not to place an additional burden upon him, they should make a grant towards the rates on the structure housing the invalid chair.
  But if the remission is to be given for a Ministry-owned structure housing a chair used by a disabled person, why stop there? Why stop because the chair has been given by a Ministry? There are a number of others who have been disabled, who are physically handicapped and who have themselves provided chairs and the structures for them. Why not remission in those cases?
  Some local authorities and welfare organisations provide chalets or garden shelters for people suffering from tuberculosis in order that they can sleep away

  1209
  from the rest of the family. Such buildings are rated. If we are to give relief for a structure housing an invalid chair, why not also give relief to those who are equally, and sometimes more severely, handicapped? They, too, have this additional structure—and at the same time have a reduced income—which is provided by a local authority or a welfare organisation. Frankly, I cannot see the difference in principle between the exemption of a structure for an invalid chair and the exemption of a chalet for a person suffering from tuberculosis.
  The new valuation list will give effect to a previous Act which made arrangements for considerably increasing assessments throughout the country. In electricity and sometimes in water there are fixed charges which, for convenience, have been based upon rateable values. The 1948 Act and this Bill make arrangements for revaluation. I cannot see that there is any justification for the revaluation being used as an instrument to provide additional revenue for the British Electricity Authority or any water undertaking which might base its fixed charges on rateable value.
  We have a duty to protect the ratepayer, and if we take one action which increases his rateable value, we must see that the instrument is not used by another body automatically to put up charges for water or electricity. We shall try in Committee, if it is within the rules of order, to introduce Amendments on that basis.
  I would advise my colleagues to give the Bill a Second Reading, but we give notice to the Minister, in doing so, that we intend to put down a considerable number of Amendments in Committee and that this is not a Bill which is likely to go through the Committee stage on the nod.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Probably in common with some of my hon. Friends, I find myself more in agreement with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) than sometimes has been the case. I can only suppose that this is an added moderation on his part, induced by the excellent results of the recent Hertfordshire County Council elections.
  If I or any other hon. Member were to approach the problems of the amend
  1210
  ment of the law of rating within the Long Title of the Bill, it would be possible to make a very long speech indeed, but I intend to follow the excellent example of the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Wellingborough and to confine myself to what is in the Bill. I will not seek to emulate the hon. Member in making a complete survey of the Bill, for I wish to confine myself to three aspects—firstly, the procedural aspect dealt with in Clauses 1 and 2 and in the First Schedule; secondly, a very brief comment on Clause 6, dealing with church halls and charitable institutions; and, thirdly, the provisions of Clause 4 (8), already referred to by the hon. Member for Wellingborough, and its impact upon the valuation of public utility undertakings.
  On the first of these matters, subject to a comment which I will make in a moment, I am satisfied that the procedural provisions constitute a justified improvement in our valuation machinery. I have taken the practical approach of seeking to test the position in connection with this new procedure from the point of view of the ratepayer and with the aid of such knowledge as I have of these matters; and I have come to the conclusion that, although there may be some apparent disadvantages to the ratepayer in the modified system for the compilation of draft lists, as provided for in the Local Government Act, 1948, those disadvantages are in fact more apparent than real, particularly in view of the safeguard of Clause 1 (8).
  But it is right to say—and this is the reservation to which I referred just now—that there is some psychological effect about this change; and the psychological effect on the ratepayer may arise from the distinction which apparently is drawn between the rights of the ratepayer, on the one hand, and those of the rating authority on the other hand. As the House appreciates, under the new provisions, whereas the rating authority gets the right of inspection of the list in December, the individual ratepayer does not get his right of inspection until the following April—and that, of course, is a discrepancy and an apparent discrimination. The House will appreciate that the local authorities' inspection is of the proposed assessments of individual hereditaments all that time in advance of

  1211
  the right of the individual concerned. In theory it is, of course, open to the rating authority to use that time and knowledge to prepare its course of action and its case well in advance of the individual ratepayer.
  Mr. Sparks: I am sure the hon. Member will agree that that is not the only reason. There is a fundamental reason connected with the administration which necessitates that.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his characteristically helpful intervention, but I was not putting that as a reason but as a possible disadvantage, not in practice a very real disadvantage, but a disadvantage within what I call the psychological sphere.
  I am moved by that consideration to wonder whether it is really necessary for the rating authority to have this prior right of inspection of all the individual proposals relating to the individual hereditaments in the list. The authority requires this prior inspection to enable it in the last quarter of the financial year to have that knowledge in order to make its rates. For that purpose it seems to me that the global figure resulting from the list is sufficient for that purpose. If its right of inspection would or could in practice be confined to the global figure, that would meet its purpose, but it would remove the danger of the individual ratepayer feeling that he was being discriminated against by prior disclosure to the rating authority of the valuation officer's proposal for his premises while it is denied to the ratepayer himself. I shall be grateful to my right hon. Friend if he will consider that point between now and Committee stage.
  Mr. Gibson: The hon. Gentleman must agree that the rights of the ordinary ratepayer, whether shopkeeper or householder, have gone under the Bill, because he will not get an opportunity of looking at the draft list and preparing himself to appeal before the final list comes into operation. That right has completely gone under the Bill and is one which I am surprised to see the hon. Gentleman supporting.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The right of objecting to the draft list has obviously gone because the draft list itself has gone, but I had referred to that point—perhaps with some compression to save the time of the
  1212
  House—and I plainly said that from the tests I made, with such knowledge as I have of these matters, I do not feel there would be any material prejudice to the ratepayer in the preparation and presentation of his case, particularly having regard to the safeguards of Clause 1 (8).
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) amongst other things for his reference to the shopkeepers. I feel that this psychological aspect, as I ventured to term it, is particularly important at present because of the position of the shopkeepers whose anxieties are well known to hon. Members and which meet with our general sympathy. There is a good deal of misapprehension, as the Parliamentary Secretary observed, on the part of shopkeepers about these matters. Not only does the Bill not affect their valuation position, although it affects their right of objection, as has just been said, but neither did the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, affect the law of the valuation of shops.
  For shopkeepers the basis of valuation is the same as it has always been, the basis of the hypothetical tenant. It is true that assessments are certain to go up. One reason is the improved rental of shop premises which in some way is due to the low assessments for shop premises.
  Mr. Houghton: Not because of the efficiency of the Inland Revenue?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I was so afraid that the hon. Gentleman, with his characteristic modesty, would not wish to make that point I was about to come to, but he has taken it from me.
  Shop premises have not suffered any change in their basis of valuation, although I can well appreciate the factor which makes some of them feel that they have suffered a change. They are rather like a person who stands still and sees everybody else passing him on a moving staircase. He gets the impression that he is moving himself. They see agriculture and industry derated, but that is very ancient history. Dwelling-houses are anchored to the 1939 valuations under the 1953 Act and special provision is made for the nationalised public utility undertakings. That means that shops and office premises and so on are to some extent left at normal rating valuation and it is a pretty bleak and uncomfortable position.
  Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Is not the shopkeepers' main complaint that they are not going to see the valuation list? The objections that have been dealt with by the hon. Gentleman are not really the objections of the shopkeepers at all.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Member has just come into the Chamber from the important matters which engage him, but I have just dealt with that point in answer to one of his hon. Friends and I shall be in trouble with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for tedious repetition if I attempt to deal with that again.
  The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the Minister's undertaking of 6th December to review the position and consider whether changes are necessary when the effect of the revaluation can be fully measured. I listened with attention to what my hon. Friend said about the time-table. Presumably the Minister will be very busy during the period from next December to April when he has the benefit of seeing the effect of the valuation lists. He will be busy putting this review into practice.
  Part of that consideration, one would have thought, would involve consultation with the chambers of trade and the chambers of commerce who are, so to speak, the trade unions of the shopkeepers in this matter. The difficulty which I foresee concerns what information they are to have of the system in order to make their constructive and useful contribution to the review which the Minister is to make. It seems to me that they must have the benefit of some of this information. Individual shopkeepers will not see the valuation lists, but there must be some machinery for putting chambers of trade and commerce into the picture so that they may have profitable and useful discussions with the Minister.
  A specific possibility for the consideration of the Minister and the House, when what can be done for the shopkeepers is considered, is whether a simple and practical approach will not be to consider an amendment in favour of the statutory deductions at gross to rateable value under the Second Schedule of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. It does have the virtue of simplicity and could bring about some relief, if the House feels
  1214
  that a relief for the shopkeepers is required.
  Shopkeepers are people who, often in small personal undertakings, give detailed study and individual attention to the needs of the community. That means that they have a special claim on the good will of hon. Members on this side of the House. I should like to say to shopkeepers that, so far as it may properly be within the framework of the national interest, they should have confidence that that claim will be honoured by a Conservative Minister and a Conservative House of Commons.
  Mr. Lindgren: Can we take that as an indication of preferential treatment?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I started by paying a compliment to the hon. Gentleman. He must not do his best to forfeit his right to that compliment, because it is unusual to be able to pay it and I would be loath to have to withdraw it.
  On Clause 6 I will be brief. I welcome very much the provisions of subsection (2) about church and chapel halls, and especially that it has been found possible to give a clear statutory exemption. Like the hon. Member for Wellingborough, I am not so happy about the purely discretionary basis of subsection (4), which deals with charitable institutions. It appears to be something of a paradox that, as we are moving towards centralisation of valuation in the interests of uniformity of treatment, we should apply to charitable institutions a method which might lead to local disparities of treatment for similar undertakings or even for branches of national institutions. That is a position which perhaps we may seek to improve in Committee.
  I come to my third point about Clause 4 (8), a small provision, but one with a big effect on public utility undertakings. These undertakings are traditionally valued on what is called the rating profits basis, but we have now reached a position where probably the only public utility undertaking which is substantially effective, by reason of nationalisation and special procedures and so on, is the water industry.
  I should explain to the House at this stage that I am the President of the Water Companies Association. I have no interest to declare in the technical

  1215
  sense, because it is an honorary position and not an office of trust. Therefore I have no financial interest to declare, but the House should know that I occupy that position and should take it into account in the observations I am about to make.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough explained a good deal of the effect of the Clause. The House will be aware—I shall be as non-technical as I can about this—that the basis of valuation as prescribed by Section 22 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, is the hypothetical rent
  "… if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes … and to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command that rent, and the annual rent as so estimated shall, for the purposes of this Part of the Act, be taken to be the net annual value …"
  The traditional practice in valuing undertakings on the profits basis has been to deduct from the gross rates, among any other proper deductions, a sum equivalent to a renewal and sinking fund before ascertaining the net annual value.
  Under the new provisions it will be permissible to deduct only expenditure actually incurred in replacement and renewal. The hon. Member for Wellingborough pointed out the practical difficulties which that change involves. The financial effect on the water industry would, in substance, be that in the place of an annual rate payment at present of £8,250,000 there would be an estimated annual rate payment of £13,800,000. It would require a reduction in rate poundage, on the estimate given to me, of about 50 per cent. to offset the disadvantage of this basis. I imagine that it is a most optimistic person who envisages a reduction in rate poundage of anything like that dimension.
  I propose to summarise briefly the arguments against this change. First, there has been this long-established practice of over 100 years on the basis which it is now sought to depart from. It is true that the practice was started under rather a different formula from that of today—the old formula of the parochial assessments legislation of 1836, under which the hypothetical landlord bore the estimated cost of repairs, but it has been on the same basis in law ever since 1925.
  1216
  Therefore, there is 30 years' practice in the law as it stands. I ask the House to say that that is a length of practice which should not lightly be departed from.
  The second main reason is the effect on the water industry itself which now pays 13·7 per cent. of its total annual revenues in rates as against a figure of only 1·8 per cent. for the gas industry, whose arrangements are being stabilised in the Bill. It is, therefore, likely to mean an increase in the cost of the provision of water if the Clause is not amended. Of course, water undertakings are either local authority undertakings or water companies with a statutorily controlled dividend. Therefore, it seems that there is a strong case to look at this provision very carefully before putting this added burden on the industry.
  It is a complex issue. I have taken rather fewer minutes to summarise my argument than the same point has taken days before the Lands Tribunal in the test case of the Birmingham water undertaking, to which the hon. Member for Wellingborough referred. It is true, as he said, that there is a test case going on at the request of the Inland Revenue. I make no special point of that. It is obvious that when the Bill was brought forward that was the opportunity for the Inland Revenue to ask for the Clause to be put in, but, to the outsider, it looks rather like changing the rules in the middle of the game.
  In fact, the case is not finished and the judgment is not available. One hopes that by Committee stage the judgment will be available—at any rate, the judgment of the Lands Tribunal, though I suppose that there might be a later judgment of the Court of Appeal. However, that would be something for hon. Members to consider in view of the difficulty of this matter. I hope that on this point the Government will take the view that rather more inquiry is necessary before one short subsection deviating from the practice of over 100 years and adding this heavy burden to the water industry is approved.
  Those are the points which I wish to make and, subject to those specific comments, I welcome the Bill and look forward to further investigation and possible improvement at a later stage.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. J. A. Sparks: I do not propose to detain the House for very long, or to go into too great detail, because in Committee we shall have to go very much deeper into the proposals of the Bill than we can be expected to do on Second Reading. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, the Bill and all that it involves in rating and valuation is a complex Measure even for those of us who have been in local government for a good many years. It is not easy thoroughly and properly to understand it. It is significant that we now have the prospect of a new valuation list—the first for 20 years. In the local government world that is a very significant event, because during the whole of that period many anomalies have arisen in various parts of the country.
  We all know that the basis of rateable value throughout the country is full of anomalies which we hope this new valuation list will help to iron out. Let me emphasise my point by saying that in parts of South Wales an ordinary prefabricated house is assessed for rates at £7 per year. In the London and Greater London areas precisely the same type of house is assessed at between £18 and £21. There can be no justification for such a wide margin of difference.
  It is also known to those of us interested in local government problems that many areas are considerably under-assessed for rating purposes and that other areas are highly assessed. Because of that, we find the under-assessed areas receive advantages from the Exchequer Equalisation Grant which are not enjoyed by the higher-assessed areas. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not the main purpose of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant to subsidise under-assessed areas at the expense of over-assessed areas.
  When the Exchequer Equalisation Grant was introduced, I think as a result of the 1948 Act, it was realised that efforts would have to be made to iron out the rating assessment anomalies existing throughout the country. This problem of valuation for rating was, as we know, transferred from the local county valuation committees to the Board of Inland Revenue. It is obvious that, by centralising valuation and producing the first valuation list for 20 years, there must of
  1218
  necessity be some calculations giving rise to anomalies.
  The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) mentioned water companies, and we know it is expected that under the new valuation list the assessments of crematoria will in some cases increase by 2,000 per cent. Anomalies will arise regarding sewage disposal works. We are proposing to exempt sewers from rating, but not sewage disposal works. In many parts of the country sewage disposal works have been assessed on a nominal basis between one authority and another. Perhaps the sewage from the area of one authority is dealt with in the area of a neighbouring authority, and both authorities have agreed on a notional assessment for rating purposes.
  A case was brought to my attention where, in respect of such a sewage disposal works, a local authority pays a neighbouring authority £148 a year in rates. The sewage farm is situated in part of the area of the neighbouring authority where values are low and no nuisance is created. But I am informed that under the new valuation list that authority will have to pay £28,000 in rates, which seems to me a very substantial difference.
  Problems are bound to arise from the change-over from local valuation to valuation by the Board of Inland Revenue, and when this Bill is discussed in Committee the right hon. Gentleman will have to pay some regard to them. I feel sure that he will be anxious—at least I hope that he will—to do what he considers right and fair.
  The hon. Member for Hertford referred to the assessment of shops in the new list. I cannot see the validity of the point he made, that the principle of the draft valuation list should apply to the first valuation list that we have had for 20 years. I presume that after this list is established we shall again resort to what was—at any rate on paper—the principle of a quinquennial valuation list. I see no reason why the principle of the draft valuation list should not apply to subsequent lists, but to introduce it in this first list will, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, completely congest the valuation courts. Inevitably there will be a considerable change in assessments throughout the country; and people who

  1219
  receive indications that their assessments have gone up will not know what they have to pay—they cannot know in December what rates they will have to pay on and from 1st April next year—
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I did not argue in favour of keeping on the draft valuation list and the right to object thereto. I was on a different point. My point was: would it not be sufficient if at this stage the right of inspection by the rating authority were confined to the global sum in the list, and not extended to proposals regarding individual hereditaments? I am sorry if I did not make myself clear.
  Mr. Sparks: There may be substance in that point, but when he refers to inspection by the local authority, I presume that the hon. Gentleman means the perusal of the valuation list?
  Mr. Walker-Smith indicated assent.
  Mr. Sparks: The hon. Member does not mean the inspection of the hereditament by the local authority?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: No.
  Mr. Sparks: Local authorities are in some difficulty about that. They argue that, without the power to inspect the hereditament itself, they are not in a position to give a considered view about the valuations on the new list, and therefore, they are in a difficulty over the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  I see the validity of the point that a local authority should confine its interest to the global figure rather than to individual particulars, but we must not overlook that it is possible for the local authority to support any ratepayer on appeal against an assessment. It may be very useful therefore to the ratepayer that the local authority has that power of championing a local ratepayer in his appeal against an assessment. In cases like that, no doubt the ratepayer would be willing to help the local authority to get the information.
  I think that the Minister is right to say that the new valuation list will be available to the ratepayer at the same time as he receives his rate demand. That is sensible. In the first place, no ratepayer will be denied the right of appeal
  1220
  against his assessment; no right of appeal is being taken away from any ratepayer. The arrangement is now being made that when he receives an indication of his new assessment the ratepayer will know at the same time what he is to pay in rates.
  If he is to pay near enough the same as he paid in the previous year—which is what will happen in many cases—the ratepayer would not normally bother to appeal against any change in assessment. But if three months previously a rate-payer receives notice of his assessment and it shows a considerable jump, in the absence of knowing what rate he will pay from 1st April, obviously, for safety's sake, he would make an appeal against his assessment. The valuation courts would be considerably congested as a result.
  I should like to draw to the attention of the House not Clause 4 but the Second Schedule which goes with it. It will be seen that the details of deductions from gross value more or less confirm the existing practice. Any shopkeeper whose assessment has increased will automatically have a larger statutory deduction as between gross and net values. The higher his assessment, the greater will be his statutory deduction.
  Clause 4 (5), however, is rather peculiar. It states
  "In the case of any class of hereditaments, the net annual value of which falls to be ascertained under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the said section twenty-two, the Minister may by order provide that, for the deductions specified in the said table, there shall be substituted deductions of such amounts, or of amounts to be calculated in such manner, as may be specified in the order:"
  Is it the Minister's intention to vary the figures in the Second Schedule? If so, what cases has he in mind? The House is entitled to an explanation of subsection (5), because it appears that although the Minister is specifying deductions from gross value in the second Schedule, he is preparing to have them varied. We ought to know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind in regard to subsection (5).
  There is not much more that I can usefully add at this stage without going into too great and intricate details. Many of the problems will have to be thrashed out in Committee, but I feel that the Bill is worthy of the support of the House

  1221
  because it is an endeavour to create and facilitate the necessary machinery for the operation of the next valuation list. That in itself makes history in the local government world.
  Everybody is looking forward to the new list as a means of removing many of the anomalies in rating and to bringing about a general uniform standard, so far as a general standard can be achieved throughout the country, whereby rates are levied on the basis of equity as between one ratepayer and another for the same services in whatever part of the country one lives. That is good in principle if it can be established. In addition, it would provide a sound basis, which the present system lacks, for the equitable distribution of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant.
  It may well be that some authorities which are at present under-assessed may find that their rateable values go up. They might receive less from the Exchequer Equalisation Grant, while some of the higher assessed authorities may find to some extent a fall in their rateable values. To that extent, they might derive advantage in the distribution of the Exchequer Equalisation Grant.
  The new arrangements will at least ensure that the Treasury contribution to local authorities is distributed fairly and equitably among the authorities who are entitled to receive it. In so far as the valuation list will achieve that purpose, I think that it will do the right thing and will help to clear up an enormous number of anomalies which have afflicted local government in this way for a good many years.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. A. C. M. Spearman: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary told us that this was a very necessary Bill. Indeed, it has had considerable support from the other side of the House. Judging from my own experience, however, I cannot say that it has been enthusiastically received in business circles. I rather hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister may find it possible to adopt some of the excellent suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), which might make the Bill more acceptable in business circles.
  I represent a large number of boardinghouse keepers, many of them well known
  1222
  and their houses well liked by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As I understand it, a landlady in, say, London who perhaps lets two rooms all the year round, will have her house assessed on the 1939 rental basis, whereas a boardinghouse keeper who lets six or seven rooms for a small part—say, three or four months—of the year will have her house rated on current values, which, of course, are much higher.
  It may well be that the landlady at the seaside resort, where the season is often very short, will draw less money from her six or seven rooms than the London landlady derives from her one or two rooms. In many cases there is really no profit at all in these boarding-houses. By "profit" I mean an amount in cash made over the course of the year which can be spent. It is simply that by working very hard indeed for two, three or four months boarding-house keepers are able to pay their rent and expenses and to live rather more cheaply for the rest of the year.
  Whereas the Bill certainly will cause a good deal of hardship. or at any rate a burden, upon shopkeepers, it seems to me that it will be a good deal more oppressive upon boarding-houses. Let me give one example. Take the case of a small shop. The premises have nine rooms, of which the ground floor is used as sale rooms and the upper floor is used as a maisonette. I understand that the maisonette occupied by the owner of the shop is rated at the lower level, whereas the shop of course pays the higher level. In the case of a boarding-house of the same size, which has six or seven rooms let for three months in the year and the owner uses most of the house for three-quarters of the year, the landlord or landlady has to pay on the higher level for the whole house. That seems to me to be a considerable hardship, and I ask the Minister to consider whether something cannot be done in this respect so that the part of the small hotel or boarding-house which is lived in by the owner receives the same benefit as is given to the shopkeeper who lives in part of his premises.
  There is one other very short point which I wish to make. I understand that hoteliers and boarding-house keepers will not know until April the amount of rates which they have to pay. If I am right, I should like to point out to the Minister that they have to prepare their

  1223
  prospectuses early in the year—long before April—for their lets in the summer. Consequently, if there is a very big increase in the burden of rates which they have to bear, there is no way of their recouping it during that year. In these circumstances, I ask whether before the further stages of the Bill the Minister cannot do something to ameliorate the conditions of hoteliers and boarding-house keepers.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Proctor: I shall not detain the House very long. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) predicted that as a result of the new valuation several great industries—I think he mentioned gas, water and transport—would have their contributions to the local rates cut by about one half. I am going to make a prediction that, despite everything that has been said, shopkeepers will have a very considerable increase in the amount of rates which they have to pay under the present legislation.
  I want to deal with the effect of the pledge that has been given and to say a few words about it. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) suggested that the National Chamber of Trade should be given some information that would, in the ordinary course, but for this Bill, be given in the draft lists to every citizen, and that negotiations should take place, apparently quietly and secretly, with the Government on the basis of the information exchanged. It is rather extraordinary procedure to give to anyone information which is not available to the ordinary citizen.
  The Minister, in his pledge, said:
  "I can … give an assurance that, as soon as the effects of the forthcoming revaluation can be fully measured, the Government will review the position and will consider whether any changes are necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 21.
  The complaint of shopkeepers is that their premises are to be revalued on the basis of the present day valuation. This applies almost to their premises only. The suggestion which is made in the pledge is that the position will be reviewed, and consideration given "where any changes are necessary." But the position can only be reviewed when the facts are known.
  When the pledge was made, it was assumed that the facts would be known
  1224
  when the draft lists were made, but now that the draft lists are not to be made the facts will not be known until the rates are levied. Under the present law, when the rates are levied there is nothing that this House can do to remedy the situation unless it brings in retrospective legislation—and Governments are very reluctant to do that.
  Under the pledge those in business premises thought that when the draft lists were published there would be an opportunity, if the Government so desired, to do something quickly before the rates were levied. Under the present proposals, if the facts are not known until the rates are levied, and an unfair burden is imposed on the business community, it will not be possible to remedy this without retrospective legislation. I should like the Minister to consider that point.
  Mr. Sparks: When my hon. Friend says that it will not be possible to rectify the position without legislation, I take it that he is asking that the shops should be assessed not on current values but on pre-war values, which would require legislation. But it is quite possible, as I understand the Bill, for an assessment to be adjusted by way of appeal.
  Mr. Proctor: That is where I part company from my hon. Friend. My information is that under the law, and as it will be carried out by the Inland Revenue, a shop is valued on its present day value. The shopkeeper can appeal as many times as he likes to the valuation committee, but he will not get any redress at all. He will only get the law, and the law is against him.
  The undertaking given by the Government is that if the law turns out to be harmful they will change it. That is the kernel of the whole position, and that is where the Government, in my view, are on the horns of a dilemma. They should be fair to all citizens. When we received a huge number of complaints—an absolute inundation—from all over the country we placed them in front of the Minister, and he came here and gave this pledge.
  I regarded the pledge as of doubtful value when it was made, and in view of the fact, now revealed, that the information is not to be available until the rate is levied, I say that the pledge will be of no value at all unless the Govern-

  1225
  ment contemplate retrospective legislation. This is an important matter to people who are entitled to a fair consideration of their case. I stress the necessity for the Government giving very careful consideration to this matter. The honesty of their position is at stake. We do not want to have something suggested which will palm people off and give them a sense of security, only for them then to find that they have to pay just the same. That is not the kind of treatment that a citizen should have from the Government.
  The whole of this legislation is unfair to vast sections of the community. I refer particularly to householders. When derating took place great industries were in a deplorable position after years of Tory rule. Prosperity was restored to them by five years of a Labour Administration and Labour planning, and they are in a different position today from what they were then.
  In 1929, when derating took place, industries could argue that they were in a parlous condition. That was under the Tories. I say that the time has now arrived to reconsider this situation and to discontinue derating which is unfair to the householders throughout the whole country.
  Great industries which are in a prosperous condition should be making a contribution to the local rates. The Government should review this whole matter. I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House would give them every facility for doing so. We should balance this problem up, and deal fairly and justly with the complaints about the pledge and also deal with the derating position. I appeal to the Government to do what is right and just.
  6.0 p.m.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to draw attention to the anxiety which the great national sporting organisations feel about the effects upon the amateur sport clubs in membership with them of the new valuation lists which are due to come into force in April, 1956. I should disclose an interest in the matter, in that I am a member of the Executive Committee of the National Playing Fields Association, which, as some hon. Members may know, has for many years taken a very
  1226
  active interest in promoting and encouraging the construction of playing fields and drawing attention to the desirability of making the necessary provisions for the creation of fields upon which games can be played and recreations can take place.
  It would be a great tragedy if the increasing number of playing fields which are now available for young people went out of use because of the increased amounts of money which may have to be paid as a result of the increased ratings of those fields. I have another personal interest in this matter, in that I am a member of the Rugby Union Committee, which has received many letters from clubs in membership with it expressing great anxiety about the possibility of their not being able to continue to operate if their grounds are rated as highly as they fear they may be.
  I am also a member of the M.C.C. Lords Cricket Ground, which is the headquarters of the M.C.C., is in my constituency, and representations have been made to me by Mr. Aird, the Secretary. In his letter to me he writes of the great anxieties of
  "the small non-profit making amateur sports clubs who might face extinction because of the additional financial burdens which it is feared may be imposed upon them."
  The reason for this anxiety is that, in the past, many local authorities were in the habit of putting low values upon the property of voluntary bodies whom they wished to help. They felt that playing fields run by local cricket, football, athletic and other clubs created a valuable local asset for young people. in many cases without any cost to the local authority; that essential recreation was provided in this way, and that these local organisations were deserving of help.
  We all welcome the fact that Clause 6 (4) provides that
  "The rating authority for a rating area shall have power to reduce or remit any rate"
  in respect of
  "any club, society or organisation which is not established or conducted for profit and whose main objects are religious, educational or philanthropic …"
  We welcome this provision if it means that these various amateur clubs will not have extra burdens imposed upon them.
  The Ministry of Education is responsible for the administration of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, and where such grounds are used

  1227
  for physical recreation it might well be argued that the word" educational" in this subsection covers the situation. If that is so, I hope that it will be made abundantly clear. It may well be that during the Committee stage it will be desirable to insert appropriate words so that there can be no misunderstanding upon this point—if, in fact, it is the Government's intention to make quite sure that these clubs are not to suffer.
  The anxieties and fears of these small clubs are crystallised in a letter written to the National Playing Fields Association by a cricket club. It is to that Association that many clubs and national associations refer for help in connection with their grounds, and in relation to legislation which may affect them or their grounds. The letter says:
  "We are, however, very disturbed to learn that under the Local Government Act, 1948, as amended by the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953, rateable values will be raised as from April, 1956, and it seems probable that all clubs will be affected to a greater or lesser extent … In our case, local rates are likely to increase by at least £200 per annum, and it would be quite impossible for us to find this amount in addition to the heavy burden of meeting other outgoings."
  We must remember that the great majority of these clubs keep going by money derived from such things as whist drives and the 10s. and guinea subscriptions of their patrons.
  I am not thinking of the great professional association football clubs or the big Rugby football clubs who have big gates—or the county cricket clubs. I am concerned about the thousands of amateur clubs who have very great fears about the effects of this Bill, and I hope that during this debate and during the Committee stage not only shall we be given an assurance in the matter, but that further steps will be taken to show that all these anxieties and fears are ill-founded.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: I regret that the Bill, which is called the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, alters only a few miscellaneous provisions of our present rating system. We shall never solve local government problems until the whole of the financial arrangements of our local authorities are completely revolutionised. All the Bill does is to make quite sure that the present system—which imposes the heaviest bur
  1228
  dens upon those who are most progressive, work hardest, and do the most to improve their businesses or houses—is continued upon an ever-increasing scale.
  As rateable values increase, as they are bound to do—because the enormous changes which have occurred in the last 20 years would, in any case, have led to an increase in most rateable values—it is inevitable that even if for the first year or two there is a drop in the poundage, there will be a higher net charge upon the most energetic and hard working people. Any local rating system which has that effect ought to be changed, but the House of Commons has so far refused to change it, and the Bill merely continues the old, bad system. What is even worse, it does not allow the ratepayers to look at the draft lists.
  I listened very carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of the Bill's effects, and the rather laboured defence of it by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). It is true that the ratepayer will have a chance of appealing, but not until the rate is levied. Then, if he appeals, the extra likely to be charged is stored up, and if he wins it is given back to him. If he fails, he goes on paying it.
  That is not good enough, and is not in accordance with the traditional ideas of justice in local government that I expected from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not see why they cannot do what we proposed in our 1948 Act—continue the system of giving ratepayers an opportunity of looking at the draft lists and the right to appeal against them if they think they are treated unfairly. I know that it will create difficulties. I was a member of an assessment committee for a year or two and I know the work, worry and trouble caused to the officers and members of the committee; but, as has been often said, we have not only to be just but to be seen to be just.
  When the valuations inevitably go up—not by a small amount, but by a very large amount because of the lapse of time since the last valuation lists were made—I should have thought it all the more important to preserve the right of examination of the draft lists and of appeal against them, as was proposed under the 1948 Act. That has gone, and, while I can understand the administrative reasons and appreciate the work

  1229
  which the Department might have—and will have—in dealing with appeals, the probability is that the Department will get a large number of appeals in any case. Anybody, such as a small shopkeeper or small business man, who finds his rateable value suddenly jump up to 60 per cent., 70 per cent., 80 per cent., or even 100 per cent., will not calmly accept it without having it justified in some way. There will be appeals.
  The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). who opened the debate for the Opposition, that the Bill will create financial troubles for local authorities, is fully justified, and, in spite of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) will support the Government, we hope that the Government will have second thoughts on this matter and will find a way in Committee to improve the situation. Otherwise, all the intelligent people who take an interest in these things in their own localities will have a justified grievance which they will undoubtedly express.
  I can see one reason for not allowing people to see the valuation lists until next April. I did not think of this one myself, so it is not a piece of my peculiar wickedness. It does, at any rate, take the Government over the next General Election. It takes them over 26th May or over a General Election in October. The people on whom the Government depend for votes will not see what an enormous whack will be put upon them by this new valuation. We should maintain the right of the ratepayers to have the most complete opportunity of looking at the draft valuation lists when first made, and give them an opportunity of appealing before the rate is levied upon them.
  Mr. Sparks: Does my hon. Friend think it will make any difference to the amount of rates the ratepayer will pay if he gets an opportunity of appealing against the draft valuation list as against the list proposed in the Bill? What advantage will the ratepayer gain in the amount of rates he will have to pay?
  Mr. Gibson: The advantage is that he knows where he is and the assessment on which he has to pay his rates. Under the Bill, he will not know that until the rate is levied.
  1230
  I want to raise some other local government points. I was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary said nothing about the effect of the Bill on local government finances. What is to happen to the education grant? At present, the local education authority receives a grant based upon a certain formula less the product of a 2s. 6d. rate. If rateable values go up, as I think they ought to, the product of a 2s. 6d. rate will be very considerably increased, particularly in a place like London. Experts at the London County Council advise me that, assuming that rateable values go up only by two-thirds, the saving on the Government education grant to local education authorities will be in the neighbourhood of £30 million. Present grant expenditure on education is about £45 million, taking the country as a whole.
  In other words, the Bill will add another £30 million to the income of the local authorities and will reduce the grant paid by the State in respect of education. If that is what is intended we are entitled to have some answer from the Government on this point.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): To what point in the Bill is the hon. Member addressing his remarks?
  Mr. Gibson: I am addressing them to the general effect of the Bill on the finances of local authorities.
  Mr. Sandys: That is not dealt with in the Bill.
  Mr. Gibson: The valuation lists will show increased valuations, which will increase the product of a 2s. 6d. rate and to that extent will reduce the Government grant.
  Mr. Sandys: I am anxious to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. In what way does he suggest the Bill will have the effect to which he is referring? Is he not referring to the 1948 Act?
  Mr. Gibson: No. I am referring to the effects of revaluation. The increased valuations that will result—
  Mr. Sandys: There is nothing about it in the Bill.
  Mr. Gibson: It is entirely concerned with valuation lists, which will increase the valuations on properties all over

  1231
  the country. Therefore, it will presumably increase the product of a 1d. rate in the £on rates.
  In so far as it does that, it must affect Government grants to local authorities one factor in the calculation of which is the amount of the product of the rate in the £. The education formula provides that there shall be deducted from the State grant an amount equal to a 2s. 6d. rate in the £. The London County Council is concerned about it and, as I have said, their experts estimate, taking the country as a whole, that local authorities may lose an amount equal to £30 million.
  Sir Ian Horobin: We have all tried to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Will he explain what provision in the Bill would alter one single figure in the valuation lists? His own 1948 Act did that.
  Mr. Lindgren: Surely the Bill makes the implementation of the valuations of that Act possible. Without the Bill those values would not take effect. There was a revision of valuations by the Acts of 1948 and 1953. The Bill gives practical effect to those Acts. At the time, it was appreciated that it would have an effect upon the grant basis of many services, and it was stated when the 1948 Act was going through that there would have to be a revision. All that my hon. Friend is asking is whether the Minister will make a statement about the possible revision of the grants in the light of the new incidence of the increases in rateable values.
  Mr. Gibson: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and I hope it is now clear both to the hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Minister.
  The Minister has asked where, in this Bill, there is anything new. Paragraph 2 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum begins:
  "The Bill provides a new method for the rating of Gas Boards in England and Wales."
  I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the fact that the Bill brings into operation new rating lists, the effect of which might be very heavy on the grants paid to local authorities for educational purposes. The estimate which I have made is that it might mean a
  1232
  loss to the education authorities of grants equal to £30 million a year, and I say that, if the largest education authority in the country thinks that that might be the effect on its finances, it is a matter which the Minister cannot ignore, and on which we are entitled to ask him to give us some information before we part with the Bill tonight.
  Another point which I wish to make was to some extent referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing the Bill, and concerns the question of pool payment. I hope the Minister will give very careful consideration to the effect of the Bill on the finances of local government, because, unless an alteration is made in the existing formula, both railways and electricity undertakings will be paying less than some of us feel they ought to be paying to the local authorities for the services which the local authorities render to them. The undertaking given that there should be conferences with the authorities concerned meets the point to some extent, and I can only stress how important it is that those conversations should proceed as quickly as possible.
  Finally, if the Government are anxious to do anything for the ratepayers, why have they not included in the Bill a Clause to get rid of the derating legislation? All the local authorities are in favour of such a step, and most of the local chambers of commerce in the country are also in favour of it. I cannot for the life of me understand why big business should still be allowed to get away with paying only 25 per cent. of its rates. During the period when the derating legislation was introduced, there might have been a plausible excuse, as we were then in a very bad slump, there was a large amount of unemployment, and a great many factories were in serious difficulties.
  I was never very keen on the Bill, even in those days, but that situation disappeared many years ago, and it is almost time that big industry was compelled to pay its full share of local rates, as it did before the derating legislation came into operation. That would have the effect of considerably reducing the charge to the ordinary local ratepayer by several coppers in the £on the rate levied each year. It would also help the small shopkeeper very considerably, and I think it would bring some justice into local government finance.
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not know what period it was to which the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) was referring when he said that, in his opinion, derating was at that time justified.
  Mr. Gibson: I did not say that.
  Mr. Powell: I understood the hon. Gentleman to be referring to a period when our industries were in such a condition that he thought there was some justification for the derating legislation though he himself was opposed to it even then. I wonder whether that period included 1948, the year in which the Labour Government introduced a comprehensive Local Government Bill, in which it would have been most convenient and appropriate to include provision for the abolition of derating.
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary observed in introducing the Bill, there are three major matters which it covers—the method of bringing into force the new valuation lists, the new system of rating for gas boards, and the new provisions for the rating of charitable land. I should like to say something on each of those topics.
  I believe that the new provisions for bringing valuation lists into force will prove to be to the advantage both of the ratepayer and the rating authorities. Let me take, first, the case of the ratepayer. It has already been made clear several times in this debate that the ratepayer, as an individual, loses nothing whatever that he has at the moment in rights and opportunities by any-of the changes which this Bill makes. He can still make proposals in respect of his valuation, and he can still make objections to proposals, and no alteration in the rates which he has to pay can take effect until those proposals and objections have been disposed of.
  Mr. Houghton: Would the hon. Gentleman say that classes and groups of ratepayers will have the same opportunities under this Bill as they would have if they could see draft valuation lists?
  Mr. Powell: I am coming later to the question of modifying the law to deal with the rules of valuation for whole groups of hereditaments. At the moment I am concerned with the individual ratepayer objecting to, or making proposals
  1234
  about, the rating of his hereditament, and I say that he loses nothing at all. He can go through the same stages and has the same opportunities—in fact, there is a slight improvement in them under this Bill—and no alteration of the rates which he has to pay can be brought into force until his objections have been determined. I will go further than that, and say that not only is he in no worse position, but he is definitely benefited.
  It is true that there is no logical connection between the valuation placed upon property and the rate poundage levied by the local authority for the area in which that property happens to be situated. There is no logical connection between the two things. But most ratepayers will, in fact, be guided in their opinion as to the fairness of their valuations, and in their decision whether to take steps to try to get them altered, by the effect of that valuation upon the sums which they actually have to pay.
  At a time when lists 20 or more years old are being altered, when no one can foresee in any particular rating area the effect on the rate poundage of the new valuation lists, the individual ratepayer, confronted merely with the statement of the proposed valuation, would be completely in the dark as to what it meant to him. The result would be that immense numbers of ratepayers would initiate proposals and objections, who would not do so if they were fully informed of the real effect of the new valuation upon them before they have to come to that decision.
  This Bill, therefore, will save large numbers of ratepayers a great deal of needless trouble and expense which they would otherwise have undertaken under a misapprehension as to the way in which they were going to he affected. So that I claim that by this Bill the ratepayer loses nothing and gains something.
  I come now to the position of the rating authorities. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) showed that if, after the commencement of the rating year, there was a considerable number of undetermined proposals, objections and appeals, the revenue which the local authority collected might, in various cases, fall considerably short of the estimate which it had made upon the basis of the valuation list and the rate which it had made. I quite agree with

  1235
  him. But was he not overlooking the position which might arise were the Bill not passed?
  No one disputes that if Clause 1 is not enacted there would be an immensely larger number of appeals against valuations than will, in fact, take place, and that this enormous number of appeals against the new valuation lists, as such, would entirely clog the machinery for dealing with them at the local valuation courts—and perhaps the county courts to which go appeals from the local valuation courts. The effect would inevitably be that a large number of decisions—of settlements—would still be outstanding when the rating year began on 1st April.
  By Section 5 of the 1948 Act the Appellant already has immunity from having to pay more until his appeal is disposed of. I admit that it is a matter of opinion whether, were this Clause not enacted, more appeals would be outstanding in the new rating year than will then be outstanding under the provisions of this Clause.
  Mr. F. Blackburn: I think I am right in saying that, under the 1948 Act, 21 days were allowed for appeal, but under Clause 1 (8, c) of the Bill any appeal can be made within the year.
  Mr. Powell: Oh, no.
  Mr. Blackburn: Clause 1 (8, c) says that. The authority would not know during the year where it stood.
  Mr. Powell: My impression is that the period is increased from 21 days to 28 days. It runs, of course, from a different point of time, but there is no unlimited opportunity—
  Mr. Blackburn: Would the hon. Member look at Clause 1 (8, c)?
  Mr. Powell: I will read it. It says:
  "Where in the case of a hereditament … a proposal for the alteration of the list, so as to reduce the value so ascribed to the hereditament. is served on the valuation officer before the end of the year beginning with the date on which the list comes into force, then, until that proposal has been settled, the amount recoverable …"
  I see the error into which the hon. Member has fallen. It is that, because the proposal can be served on the valuation officer before the end of the rating
  1236
  year there is, therefore, no limitation on the period during which that proposal can be served. In fact, the hon. Gentleman and I are referring to two completely different periods of time.
  I agree that it is a matter of opinion whether more or fewer appeals will be outstanding in the earlier part of the rating year under this procedure or that which it supersedes, but it is arguable that not only the individual ratepayer but also the rating authority will stand to gain from the provisions of Clause 1.
  As has several times been said this Bill will facilitate the coming into force of valuations made under the 1948 and 1953 Acts. A great part of the debate has turned upon the effect on a certain class of hereditament—namely, shops and business premises—of the special treatment of other classes of property—namely, residential property—which was introduced by the 1948 Act, and continued in a different form in the 1953 Act.
  It is quite true that since 1948 shops and business premises have been the only types of hereditament that have been both fully valued and fully rated. To that extent they have borne an unequal share of the rate burden. The question is whether, for that reason, the House ought to decline to allow the new valuation lists to be brought into force, as is intended, next year.
  I would first point out that, as in the case of other individual ratepayers, the ratepayers who are occupiers of shops and business premises lose no opportunities under this Bill of individual appeal and representation which they already possess. Further, their own position as a class cannot become clear until the entire valuation list is available and has been translated into terms of rate poundage.
  When my right hon. Friend, in his statement of 6th December, referred to the time when the effects of the forthcoming revaluation could be fully measured, those words could not possibly refer to the date of publication of draft valuation lists since the draft valuation lists, in themselves, could give no full measure of the effect of revaluation. The effect of revaluation upon any particular class of property depends upon the balance of a valuation list as a whole.

  1237
  It was, therefore, only when the rate poundages based on the new lists had been fixed, that the effect upon any class of property of the 1948 and 1953 Acts together could be fully measured. There can be no question of this Bill—which does not alter the date of the fixing of the rate poundage—having any bearing upon the validity of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend.
  At present, it is a matter of mere conjecture as to how severe will be the effect upon this class of property of the new valuation lists. It will, of course, be greatest where that type of property is in a small minority in any particular rating area, because the larger the proportion of the valuation list which is represented by any class of property, the less any variation in the valuation of that type of property affects the rates paid by its occupiers. None of us can fully assess that until the new lists have been translated into terms of rate poundage.
  I would say to the occupiers of these premises who are anxious about the result of the new lists coming into force that they would fare very much worse if those lists were not brought into force. A general reason is that only the coming into force of these new lists can be the prelude of a wider review of local government finance and rating altogether. A special reason is that unless the new lists were brought into force as soon as practicable it would be impossible and inequitable to prevent the rating authorities from rating these properties separately. Those properties would then stand in the current valuation lists at the new valuations, while all other properties stood in the list at the 1934 value. The occupiers would then be in a very much worse position than they will be after April, 1956. It is probably within the knowledge of many hon. Members that a number of rating authorities have, in fact, prepared valuations of shops and business premises in their areas for insertion in the present lists.
  I do not, however, regard the position which the new 1956 lists will represent as in any way satisfactory or final. That is implicit in the 1953 Act itself. Many have failed to observe that the 1953 Act applies only to one valuation; that it is a temporary, transitional Measure. The first words of Section 2 of that Act read
  1238
  "For the purpose of making or altering the first valuation lists made after the passing of this Act. …"
  So, in any case, Parliament, in the near future, has to make a new valuation Act which will determine the basis on which the subsequent valuation lists are to be drawn up. When that time conies, I believe the House will do right to revert as far as possible to a uniform basis of valuation on the hypothetical tenant for all types of property to which that basis can practicably be applied.
  The essence of rating is fairness as between one ratepayer and another, and there cannot be fairness between one ratepayer and another when one property is valued at a historical value and another is valued at a modern value.
  I will not detain the House with the familiar story of how we got into this position; but as times goes on and as housing and other development gets further away from the effects of war, it will be possible and, therefore, just to value all hereditaments for rating upon their current annual value, as was the original and traditional basis of rating. Granted that we are going to raise a tax graduated according to the annual value of property occupied, surely all property occupied ought as far as possible to be rated according to its current annual value at the same time.
  I come now to the second of the three major matters with which the Bill deals, namely, the valuation for rating of gas boards. I believe that the system introduced by this Bill is superior to that which was applied in 1948 to the British Transport Commission and the British Electricity Authority in two respects, though in another respect I think it suffers from the same handicap, and that was the one to which the hon. Member for Wellingborough referred.
  The system adopted under this Bill in relation to gas boards is that there will be an allocation not of rates paid, or of sums paid in lieu of rates, but of rateable value to the individual rating authorities throughout the country. That means that instead of the gas boards paying, as do the Electricity Authority and the Transport Commission, on the basis of the average rate poundage levied throughout the country, they will pay in accordance with the actual rate poundage payable in any particular area.

  1239
  Thus, one defect which at present exists in the distribution of the electricity and transport rate moneys will not apply to the payment of rates by the gas boards. They will be put virtually in the position of a ratepayer in each rating area, bearing the same burden as other ratepayers in that area. Thus, one defective feature of the 1948 Act does not attach to the procedure here proposed.
  The other feature which was defective in the 1948 Act was, in my opinion, more serious. Rating authorities in whose area there were large transport hereditaments or large electricity-producing hereditaments found themselves faced, albeit over a period of transition, with a very big loss in rateable value, because no account was taken by the formula—and I am prepared to admit that. in the case of the railways, no account probably could have been taken by the formula—of the amount of property actually situated in each rating area.
  Here, in this new formula for the gas boards, almost as much weight is attached to the amount of gas produced as to the amount of gas consumed in a particular rating authority's area. Therefore, those rating areas in which large gas plants are situated will not lose a great part of their rateable value, as those authorities in whose areas electricity plants are situated lost and have continued to lose under the 1948 dispensation. Those seem to me two points in favour of this gas board scheme as against those which we have been working since 1948 for transport and electricity.
  But all these schemes for the pooling of rates suffer from one fundamental difficulty from which my hon. Friend has found no method, at any rate so far, of escape. The basic figure which one establishes, the datum line, inevitably becomes a historical figure which gets more and more out of date if the value of money changes. Undoubtedly, if the electrical and transport hereditaments had continued to be rated on a "profits basis," their valuations and what they were paying in rates would be higher today than they are under the 1948 Act. It is for that reason that I was particularly glad to hear my hon. Friend say that the quinquennial review under the 1948 Act will be extended in scope so as to include these arrangements for the global payment of rates by public utilities.
  1240
  Finally, there is this question of the rating of charitable lands. One admits that there has been a considerable gain, as compared with the Poor Rate Exemption Act, 1833, in that the complete exemption hitherto enjoyed by churches and chapels has been extended to the use, at any rate for religious and semi-religious purposes, of the halls attached to them.
  But with that advantage I am afraid that we have got into a more serious disadvantage. It was obviously impossible to allow the Inland Revenue to apply the same discretionary under-valuation—or, indeed, I believe in some cases, virtual omission from the valuation lists—of charitable lands as had been previously practised by the old rating authorities. That was clearly impossible. So we find ourselves with Clause 6 (4), under which local authorities are given the option to remit part or the whole of rates in such cases.
  You might think, Mr. Speaker, that there was very little difference between a rating authority having the discretion to under-value and a rating authority having the discretion to remit or reduce a rate. In reality there is a very great practical difference. It is quite a different matter for an authority presented with a hereditament valued at £1,200 to ignore it for rating purposes, instead of simply continuing what have often been traditional under-valuations carried forward by common consent from one valuation list to another.
  I fear that as Clause 6 stands it will place both local authorities and charitable organisations in great embarrassment. Local authorities will have great difficulty in deciding between one case and another in exercising this new type of discretion, and charitable organisations will find themselves, in quite a new way, at the mercy of the rating authorities.
  I hope that means may be found to remove this complete and unfettered discretion and to help rating authorities as well as charities before the Bill reaches the Statute Book. Clause 6 as it stands seems to me to be the one serious blemish upon a Bill which, otherwise, is both useful and necessary.
  Mr. William Ross: On a point of order. May we be informed whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has also joined the right hon. Member for

  1241
  Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), because hon. Members from Scotland have been waiting anxiously to find out what changes the Bill will bring to the law of Scotland. Are we to be told by the Secretary of State, or by one of his minions?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I think I observed one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland here some time ago, but I cannot help the hon. Member in this.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: The House has just listened with close attention to a speech by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who has once more shown his very thorough grasp of a complex subject. He is a dangerous man: he is a danger to friend and foe. He is a danger to his opponents because he frequently knows more about a subject than they do, and he is a dangerous rival to his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who ought to know as much.
  However, I will not follow the hon. Member back to the discussion we had in Committee upstairs on the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953. In his speech he brought out his devotion to the principle of universal valuation on current hypothetical values. We had a debate on that principle in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member was then in opposition to his own Government and on that same occasion I was on their side. For reasons on which we need not now dwell, the House decided that it was not yet time to value for rating purposes the general run of dwelling-houses on current rental values. This new valuation list, therefore, must go on the basis decided by the House in 1948, as amended in the Valuation for Rating Act, 1953.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary said in his opening speech, the Bill makes no change in the basis of valuation of the main groups of properties, whether business premises or private dwelling-houses. What it does is to alter the procedural arrangements in connection with the bringing into operation of the new valuation lists.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said that his right hon. Friend the then Minister foreshadowed this change in procedure in a remark which he made about 12 months ago. It is true that he hinted at
  1242
  some change, but I think the House will agree that it was a very ambiguous statement and that it did not foreshadow in any particular what the change might be.
  Indeed, I complain that the Minister has kept his intentions dark ever since. Since that ambiguous statement he has not said a word in public, as far as I know, about the possibility of legislation to make procedural changes. He certainly said nothing about it to the representatives of the National Chamber of Trade when they went to see him in November, and he said nothing whatever about it in a reply given in the House as recently as 16th March.
  I will tell the House how careful the right hon. Gentleman has been to conceal his intentions about this procedural change. I gave notice of a written Question on 15th February, asking the Minister whether he could
  "now say what will he the time-table for the deposit of the new valuation lists and subsequent procedure under … the Local Government Act. 1948."
  I got no reply to that Question for a month. In the meantime, I made inquiries about what had happened, and I was assured that the proposed reply was before the Minister for his consideration.
  On 16th March, as reported in column 127 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Minister gave his reply, as follows:
  "Under the Act of 1948, as amended by the New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Act. 1952, and the New Valuation Lists (Postponement) Order, 1954, the new valuation lists have to be transmitted to the rating authorities not later than the end of December next."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 127.]
  That was the reply which the Minister gave on 16th March. Two days later he introduced the Bill. I do not think that is being as frank with the House as the Minister ought to be. Having regard to the advance statement made by his right hon. Friend a year earlier, there was no reason why he should not have said a little more about his intention for the information of the House. Certainly he ought not to have given this reply, to be followed two days later by the introduction of the Bill. I would not say that he was misleading the House, but at least he was not giving the House all the information to which I think it was entitled.

  1243
  The Bill proposes these quite important changes in procedure, which he did not disclose to the representatives of the National Chamber of Trade and of which the House was in ignorance until the Bill was introduced. However, we have the Bill before us and we must make the best of it, see what it proposes to do and, if possible, make it a better Bill in Committee.
  These procedural changes are an attempt to fit a silencer to the machinery of the introduction of the new valuation lists. It can be said that the Minister is perhaps doing more than meet trouble half-way. He wants to get rid of trouble before it mounts in its intensity and its indignation and perhaps threatens the whole fabric of the new valuation lists.
  There is no doubt whatever that when the new valuation lists come into operation they will substantially change the distribution of the rate burden. I said on the Third Reading of the Valuation for Rating Act on 9th July, 1953, that there were quite plainly substantial increases in valuations confronting those who occupied business premises, and that is why those representing business interests are so apprehensive about the possible effects of the new valuation lists and the possible increase in the rate burden upon their resources.
  When I made a very firm forecast on Third Reading on 9th July, 1953, I was immediately challenged, "How do you know? Where do you get the information from? We know nothing. Have the Government ever made any pronouncement which gives that information?" Of course, I have to be careful, because I live in the world of valuation and move in and out of it, and I cannot help picking up information which sometimes I assume everybody else knows; and then when I make a statement, thinking that it is common knowledge, someone pops up and asks, "Where do you get that from?"
  This time I have fortified myself not with official information but with professional information. I notice that in the "Manchester Guardian" recently a Mr. Stiles, a member of the valuation and rating committee of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, told the Drapers' Chamber of Trade in London what he thought would be the effect of
  1244
  the new valuation lists. After describing the different bases of valuation of dwelling houses, on the one hand, and business premises, on the other hand, he said that on that basis it was estimated generally that annual values of dwellings would increase by 40 to 50 per cent. and those of shops and factories would be trebled or even quadrupled. That is the opinion of a professional man to whose view on the matter we could give considerable weight.
  He went further. He went on to make an estimate of the actual effect of the new valuation lists on the rate burden itself. On the assumption that the rating authorities would not demand more general income than they get at present, he said that the rate liability to shops would be increased by 60 per cent. and there would be a small reduction of up to 20 per cent. for occupiers of houses. He concluded:
  "While everyone will save a little on their houses, their liability in respect of business premises will be increased by something like 50 to 100 per cent."
  That is why the National Chamber of Trade and other organisations of traders are apprehensive about the new valuation lists. They may be confronted next spring, quite suddenly, with a substantial addition to their rate charges. I concede at once that, being business men and women, they will be able to charge the additional rates against their taxable profits and to that extent the less Income Tax will mitigate the extra cost to the occupier of business premises. Even so, it may be serious in many cases.
  I was not a little surprised when I saw that the National Chamber of Trade was sending out circulars and letters by the thousand to hon. Members of this House, and perhaps sending many more to the Minister. All I have to say about that campaign is that it was too late—much too late. They ascribed to the 1953 Act changes in the basis of valuation which it did not contain. They overlooked that this fundamental change in the basis of valuation between dwelling-houses and business premises went back to 1948 and all the 1953 Act did was to alter—but still on a pre-war basis of valuation—the precise valuation.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: They even ignored the fact that the de-rating of industry went back to 1929.
  Mr. Houghton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; they were undoubtedly under several misapprehensions about the position. When they went to the Minister it is understood that he gave them a certain pledge. It is important to note that when the Parliamentary Secretary read the actual words of the assurances given he was reading the concluding lines of a long reply given by his right hon. Friend to the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), on 6th December. The Parliamentary Secretary read the words:
  "I can, however, give an assurance that, as soon as the effects of the forthcoming revaluation can be fully measured the Government will review the position and will consider whether any changes are necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 21.]
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman told the House, but he had already spoken to the representatives of the National Chamber of Trade. Just recently, when the President of the National Chamber of Trade, Mr. J. Oliver Watkins, was speaking in Halifax, he referred to and, so to speak, quoted the nature of the pledge given by the Minister. He was complaining so recently as 25th March against this Bill, and he used a phrase which I hesitate to quote in this House. He said the Bill was, "a bit of double-crossing." Those are painful words from a friend; they would sound unkind from an enemy. He also said of the Minister:
  "We feel he has let us down."
  I am assuming that Mr. J. Oliver Watkins was present at the interview with the Minister. If he was not present, as President of the National Chamber of Trade, he must surely have found out exactly what took place. He is reported to have said in the course of his speech:
  "However, the Minister had felt that the Chamber was seeing the situation through rather dark glasses and it would not be as bad as members thought. He said that traders would not know what their new ratings would be until December this year, when the draft valuations would be published. If the chamber was of the same opinion after seeing the draft valuations, its representatives could see him again."
  That is a very different assurance from that which the Parliamentary Secretary quoted. I think the Minister ought to tell us, was that assurance given in those terms? If so, was the Minister not misleading the National Chamber of Trade
  1246
  by talking of draft valuation lists when he had in his pocket the print of this Bill? I think that should be answered.
  Mr. Sandys: In order to save the hon. Member trouble, I can tell him that I never mentioned draft valuation lists in any of these discussions. Such assurance as I gave is set out in the statement I gave to the House, which is contained in HANSARD and with which I think the hon. Member is familiar, but no other assurance apart from that.
  Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Watkins is not the only one who misunderstood the Minister. I have a letter in my hand which states:
  "The National Chamber of Trade was told by the Minister after a national protest week about this Bill last November that, after publication of the draft valuation lists, if the results confirmed our fear that an unjust burden had been placed on the shopkeeper, we could immediately go to see him knowing that he would give us a fair hearing."
  The letter states definitely, "draft valuation lists," which confirms what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
  Mr. Houghton: There is no doubt that the statement the Minister has been kind enough to make is very important indeed, because it corrects the misunderstanding which so obviously has been expressed in the statements made by representatives of the National Chamber of Trade. We must accept it from the right hon. Gentleman without question. We may regret that he did not make himself more plain, or we may deplore that the representatives of the National Chamber of Trade were not listening—or that, if they listened, they misunderstood. Anyhow, something has gone wrong somewhere. The only thing we must accept is that the Minister is not to blame. I think the National Chamber of Trade will probably be somewhat disturbed to read what the Minister has just said, although of course I must bear in mind that he has seen representatives of the National Chamber of Trade since then.
  Only a day or two ago there was a Press notice which said that the Minister had seen representatives of the National Chamber of Trade again. That was referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Gentleman had so many interruptions at that moment that I was unable to put a point to him which, I hope,

  1247
  will be answered when the Minister replies. Were the representatives satisfied when they left the Minister the other day? They knew then the contents of this Bill. They sent telegrams to him. They sent telegrams to me and to other hon. Members, asking us to intervene. They said: "We have been double crossed, we have been let down, we rely on you to put the Minister straight." At the same time, they made a bee-line for the Minister themselves and got there first. He saw them. What satisfaction did they get? Was any reassurance given the other day? I do not know; I think we ought to be told.
  From what I have said, there is no doubt that when the new valuation lists come out those who will be gravely concerned by the new lists will be those who occupy business premises. If the estimate of Mr. Stiles is to be relied upon, although the valuations of a large number of dwelling houses may go up somewhat, the actual rate burden will be slightly reduced. That, he said, is a rough estimate and I have nothing better or different to put in its place. So that the views will come mainly from the source where the apprehension now exists.
  What the Minister is trying to do under these procedural rearrangements is to disclose at one and the same time the new valuation and the new rate poundage, so that nobody need squeal before he is hurt. That is really the purpose of the first main part of the Bill.
  We must sympathise with any attempt to save citizens from needless concern or with any proposal to save them from worry and anxiety about the financial effect of the new rate burden, whether in the case of a shopkeeper or the occupier of a private dwelling. My complaint about the Bill is that it is so late as to look like a manoeuvre. It is so late that it appears to offer some doubt about the impact of the new valuation lists upon the public.
  I believe that this new procedural arrangement should have been brought to this House much earlier if- the Minister intended to proceed with it. If the proposed change had been farther away from all this turmoil about the valuations of business premises and the few months only which must now elapse before practical work has to be done upon them,
  1248
  it would have been open to less misunderstanding.
  I expect the Minister to say, "If you do not like these proposals, what else would you do? Would you leave things as they are? If so, how would you cope with the heavy administrative job of dealing with a very large number of appeals many of which might never have been made had the ratepayers known the full story?" The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that so far as the individual ratepayer is concerned, the new procedure would safeguard his position absolutely and would in some matters be a better protection than the existing arrangements.
  I agree with the hon. Member as regards the individual ratepayers, but it must be appreciated—this was the point of my intervention—that the new valuation lists will not affect all classes and groups of ratepayers alike. There will be a redistribution of the rate burden and some people will feel it most acutely. Therefore, I am sure the hon. Member will agree that the new procedure leaves no opportunity for groups of ratepayers who stand in the same relation to the new valuation lists to confer together, to take collective action and to make collective representations and bring their grievances, if they have any, before the Minister and before this House. There will be no time for that. The new lists will be in operation, the individuals will be safeguarded, they can all appeal and they will not be asked to pay any more in actual rates than in the previous year until their appeal is settled That is what we are told.
  But what of the National Chamber of Trade? My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) put some pointed questions to the Minister. What will the Minister do if, when he has seen the effect of the new valuation lists, there is something to be done? What will the Minister do, and how will he do it? The right hon. Gentleman must know now what the effect of the new valuation lists will be upon shopkeepers. He can make a very close estimate indeed of it. He does not have to wait until the valuation lists are deposited with local authorities at the end of December before he can find out. He has a fountain of information on this matter at his elbow. He can learn all he wants to know about the new valuation lists and I should be very much mistaken if he does not know it already.

  1249
  What the Minister does not know is what the poundage rate will be when the new valuation lists come into operation. But he can now make an estimate of what the all-round effect will be of the new valuation lists upon total rateable values. I fully believe that the Minister could now give a fairly close appraisal of what the effect would be. At least, he knows what the National Chamber of Trade will regard as the consequences to its members which they would take to the Minister for redress. If their rate burden is higher than they think it reasonable for them to bear, they will ask the Minister to do something to lower it.
  What will the Minister do? What can he promise them that he will do? I hope that he is not leading them up the garden. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said, the Minister can change all this only by legislation. It would have to be retrospective legislation, and we might get into an awful tangle and mess before we finish if we tamper with these new valuation lists when they have come out.
  I presume to criticise this and the Minister is entitled to ask what constructive suggestion I have to make. When we were on the benches opposite and we asked the Opposition of the day what they would do if they were in our place, they always took refuge behind the general form, "We have not all the facts and figures at our disposal which would enable us to make a wise pronouncement." They shuffled out of their responsibilities as an Opposition whenever they were challenged about what they would do.
  This is what I would do. I would bring these lists out earlier under the existing procedure and introduce procedural changes in the Bill to do it. The lists can be produced almost at any time now. The changes in the basis of the valuation of certain specialised undertakings dealt with in the Bill would, I admit, have to be dealt with quite speedily in order that the complete lists would be available; but most of the valuations in these lists have been written there for months and months, so long, in fact, that a lot of them are already out of date. The Minister could have produced these lists earlier.
  I will say this to the Minister. These lists should be produced on the day before the General Election. However early
  1250
  the General Election comes, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that these lists could be produced. After all, the citizens are entitled to know what sort of a rod is in pickle for them before they go to the polls and decide whether they shall reelect the present Government.
  I have always said, with no malice whatever in my mind, that the Government would never let these new valuation lists see the light of day until after the General Election. I have always held that view and I hold it now. The Government do not intend these new valuation lists to appear before the General Election. They do not believe in having that packet of trouble on their plate along with many others when they go to the polls.
  These lists could be brought forward. That would give more time for the consideration of appeals and the settlement of objections before the lists actually came into operation. "Ah," the right hon. Gentleman may say, "but what about the rate poundage? They will all have the wind up in July just as much as if they saw the lists in December or January or February." What the ratepayer wants is to know the rate poundage. Then he will have a better idea of things.
  There is no reason at all why the local authorities should not forecast for the benefit of their ratepayers what the rate burden will be when the new valuation lists come into operation. The whole of the procedure could follow the more normal course, and then the National Chamber of Trade would have plenty of time to turn the heat on the Minister. That is what it intends to do, and he may as well make up his mind to it.
  Sir I. Horobin: Will one day be enough?
  Mr. Houghton: No, and even if the right hon. Gentleman leaves it to the last available day the heat will become more unbearable as it is turned on more and more as time goes on. The right hon. Gentleman has a lot of trouble coming to him, and I am trying to get him out of it, although not once while I have been speaking has he given any sign of appreciation of that.
  I think all this business could be done quite simply. Local authorities could make it their business, and should be required to make it their business, to inform their ratepayers what the likely effects will

  1251
  be. Local authorities will know the grand total, at any rate roughly, of the new rateable values within their respective areas, and they could and should provide the ratepayers with good estimates. That would be far better, and would give much greater assurance, than the right hon. Gentleman's proposed procedure. As the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) so truly said, there is a good deal of psychology in all this. When a change such as this is to be made one has to introduce it with great care, with great understanding, and with great sympathy.
  For the first time we are to have an impartial revaluation, one that has not been monkeyed about by local valuation and assessment committees, one that does not take account of the views of any committee or political party either in this House or locally. For the first time there is to be honesty and integrity in valuation for rating. That, of course, is the trouble. All this time we have been living a lie. The rating for valuation legislation has been a dead letter. Local authorities have done nothing to make it a live letter. So the years have gone by. Now we have this big change, which the new valuation lists will entail, with the redistribution of the rate burden, which many people will feel hardly.
  The Minister may say that what I have suggested does not amount to very much, but what he suggests in this Bill is less satisfactory. My suggestion, if carried out, would remove the feeling of bitterness that still persists in the National Chamber of Trade, and I think that if the right hon. Gentleman were to adopt my suggestion he would find that he would appear, more than he is now appearing, to want to meet the crisis that is coming. As it is, the impression is that his Bill is a sort of bulldozer to stifle the cries of the victims of the new valuation lists. If he were to adopt my suggestion, he would be politically wiser, though heaven alone knows why I should want him to be that.
  7.24 p.m.
  Sir Ian Horobin: Time is getting on, and I must resist the temptation to follow the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) into the debate we have carried on on previous occasions
  1252
  here on the Floor of the House and upstairs on matters of general rating policy, and particularly about our old friend the hypothetical tenant. I want to confine what I have to say at this stage, in view of the time, to one matter, one of the three main aspects of the Bill, namely, the method of rating of charitable hereditaments, which is the subject of Clause 6. I hope I shall have the attention of my right hon. Friend.
  This is a matter which, as he knows to his cost, unlike the matters affecting the National Chamber of Trade, has not been left to a late date. At least two years ago, even before the 1953 Act, this matter was raised with the Ministry by me, as it has been ever since. My right hon. Friend must have found in the Ministry a file a foot thick of correspondence dealing with the troubles of charitable hereditaments arising—I think it is fair to say, unintentionally—from the Local Government Act, 1948, which was a Measure for which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible.
  Without going into the whole matter now, I shall say simply that the trouble arises from the fact that all these good works have enjoyed—I think we can say, for centuries—what almost corresponds to the customary rents in agriculture; a treatment which has had no legal basis except in a very narrow sense, a treatment which grew up and was accepted, but which is now to be swept away—inevitably swept away as the Parliamentary Secretary very rightly pointed out. It would tax the ingenuity of all concerned to say how we are to avoid the really disastrous effects of that.
  I do not want to go now into much technical detail, because most of it will be considered in Committee, but as I shall have to be critical in what I am about to say I would at once, before going any further, thank my right hon. Friend very sincerely for drawing the Money Resolution sufficiently wide to enable reasonable Amendments to be moved and considered in Committee. It is often the practice of Governments of both colours, when they finally make up their minds about Bills, to draw Money Resolutions so narrowly that it is impossible to have useful discussions in Committee on those Bills. In this case, I think, we shall find—I may be disappointed—that reasonable Amendments will be able to be

  1253
  considered in Committee, and that expectation makes it less necessary for me now to deal with those detailed matters at great length.
  I do not think that hon. Members of this House, still less most of the charities in the country, have any conception of what will hit them when these valuation lists come out. As the House knows, I have been associated with a number of different charities. For the best part of my life I have been a trustee for any number of playing fields, sports grounds, sailors' homes, boys' clubs—every kind of body of that sort up and down the country.
  Informal discussions have been going on between the Inland Revenue and persons with responsibility for these charities, and those discussions have enabled us to get a fairly good idea of what the situation in some cases will be. I have two instances to give, but before I give them I would remind the House that, of course, all the bodies which have hitherto been under discussion in this debate as being likely to have their assessments put up have at least had some defence against the change in the value of money. I have great sympathy with the views of shopkeepers, but, after all, they have been able to increase the prices of their goods, and will, if necessary, be able to do so again.
  Charitable hereditaments are in a very different position. All their subscriptions, donations, and income from endowments have steadily fallen in number or in value. There is not one of those charities that is not at its wits' end to know how to make ends meet, how to find even the money with which to pay people they must employ. This Bill may be the last straw, and I do make the most earnest appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider, as, I am sure, he will, the observations which are now being made and will be made in Committee.
  For one thing, he cannot afford a mistake in this matter. If, in consequence of the Bill, anything goes wrong with the National Chamber of Trade, legislation can be introduced six months or a year afterwards to help put things right. In the case of the charities, however, there will not be any time for anything of the sort. If anything happens to them of the sort that seems only too likely as a con-
  1254
  sequence of this change which is hanging over them, the charities will not be there by the time there is any prospect of attempting to put right what has gone amiss.
  I have chosen at random two quite different types of hereditaments. One is a type of charity which has a large building and the other is one which has a large open space. Although the hereditaments which I shall quote are in the areas of different local authorities the rates are nearly 30s. in the £in each case. In the first case, where there is a large building, the figure which is now on the rating list is £350 and we are advised to expect the new figure to go up to £1,500.
  The other hereditament is an open space, one of the biggest private playing fields in the London area. It is used exclusively for working lads, and I cannot imagine any kind of charity which would have more general support in all parts of the House. Incidentally, as an illustration of another difficulty, right through the middle of the playing field there runs the boundary of the two rating authorities. What is done by one authority in exercise of discretion—a subject to which I shall come in a moment—can be completely neutralised by the exercise of discretion by the other authority.
  In the case of the second hereditament, the figure now in the rating list is £60, but we are advised that the new figure will be £750. There is not a ghost of a chance of appeal against such a figure because, twice since the war, I have refused two offers of rent, one from a wealthy bank and the other from a big industrial undertaking, of £1,000 a year. Anybody who knows what charitable organisations of that kind are facing financially today will realise that an increase from £60 to £750 in the assessment, where rates are nearly 30s. in the £, puts such a charity completely out of action. That is the kind of danger which we are facing.
  What does the Bill do? I admit at once that, as a result of efforts that have been made, the Bill is better than it was originally intended to be, but it does very little. The question of discretion has already been dealt with, but I should like to associate myself, not for the first time on these kinds of matters, though I seldom agree with him in other spheres, with the devastating criticism made by the hon.

  1255
  Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). That was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith).
  The idea that we can rely in the new circumstances on a completely general discretion is thoroughly undesirable and, indeed, almost unworkable. I will not labour the points which the hon. Member for Wellingborough made so admirably, because I want to make different points, but I associate myself entirely with him. I am sorry that he is not in his place because I should have liked to have put one matter to him. If the hon. Member took the view that there should be no discretion at all—and I do not think that he did—I personally should not go so far. There are always marginal cases where definition is difficult.
  An open space is either an open space or it is not, but there are other kinds of charitable hereditaments about which there might be legitimate differences of opinion. There, I would not go so far as to say that no discretion is desirable. I think that some provision should be made for that, and I think that the hon. Member for Wellingborough would agree with me, but I entirely agree with his objection that to rely entirely in totally new circumstances on discretion is unworkable and undesirable.
  At a time when the whole problem is how to make workable a uniform national valuation, it is absurd to have a situation where hereditaments of exactly the same type, perhaps on opposite sides of the road, will be liable to rates in a totally different way according to the discretion of the local authorities. But there is another objection which the hon. Member for Wellingborough did not take up, but which I think more serious. It was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. It is that if we are left, except for a set of hereditaments related narrowly to churches, to rely purely on discretion where quite unpayable rates are liable to be imposed, the position of trustees of charitable trusts will become, in relation to local authorities, absolutely impossible.
  I take as an illustration the case of playing fields. It is not unfair to say
  1256
  that most of my time as a trustee for playing fields has been occupied since the war in fighting off local authorities or statutory authorities. They want a strip of the playing field for straightening a corner of a road or for building a ladies' lavatory, or they want half the field for building a school, or the best part of it for the erection of an electricity pylon, and one has almost to sit up all night with a machine gun to keep them off. All the experience of local authorities which have built up areas in places like Suffolk does not seem to have impressed upon local authorities generally the importance of the few remaining open spaces.
  I am not an anti-local government man. There are always excellent reasons why this or that open space will be the last one that the local authority will "pinch"—its very last territorial demand—but, unfortunately, the demand has to be resisted. If one is to be in the position in which, when all the negotiations are going on, the local authority has simply to do nothing to put one out of business, how can one hope to hold one's end up in the endless negotiations which, nowadays, are the lot of charitable trustees and other people who are facing authorities possessing compulsory powers?
  I do not want to put the matter too high, or to impute evil motives to local authorities and statutory authorities, but that is true of anybody owning a valuable piece of open space round our towns, and a charity ought not to be placed in a position in which it will be practically impossible for it to preserve itself against these demands. General discretion as our main defence and not merely as a marginal defence is wrong. Clause 6 just will not do.
  I do not wish to detain the House at this stage with proposals which we can put forward in Committee. I have mentioned open spaces as an illustration. I should have thought that a perfectly straightforward addition to the complete exemption class, after churches and church halls, would be the privately owned open spaces of charitable trusts. That class would cover a great many of the most valuable open spaces and I do not see why those open spaces should not be exempted altogether. I do not press that point particularly now, but merely mention it.

  1257
  This is a grave and urgent danger. No conceivable reduction in poundage can assist these particular hereditaments. They are all hereditaments which, one would have thought, we would be generally anxious to preserve in one way or another. There are perfectly good precedents in local Acts for partial exemptions. There is a pile of Acts at the Ministry relating to this country and Scotland providing various degrees of exemption, but at this stage of our procedure I do not want to tie myself to a complete or partial exemption or a change in the definition of the church hall class. All that I am putting to the House, and I hope that I shall have carried a substantial number of hon. Members from both sides with me, is that we are here faced with a very grave danger which certainly has not been met by the Clause as it is drafted.
  This is a matter in which we cannot afford to make a mistake, because the hereditaments concerned have no means of tiding themselves over or passing on the increased charge to consumers. I earnestly ask the Minister that when the time comes to consider the Clause in Committee he should give very careful and sympathetic consideration to Amendments which, I hope, will receive support from both sides of the House.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I have no wish to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) into the details of Clause 6, although it is one of the Clauses which affects Scotland. I rise simply to make one or two observations in order to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland an opportunity to tell us exactly how Scotland is affected by the Bill.
  There is a growing practice in this House, and I am sorry about it, of putting all sorts of small changes affecting Scottish legislation into English Bills, and that makes it exceedingly difficult for those who have to administer the Bills in Scotland as well as to Members of Parliament who are trying to follow Scottish business in the House. It was a matter about which there was some debate last week, and this week again we find the same thing. We have protested before against the same action on the part of the Government.
  1258
  So far as I understand the Bill, its main provisions do not affect Scotland, but it does involve some of the recommendations which have been made by the Sorn Committee. I understand that is so in regard to Clauses 6 and 7, though I have not checked this. However, speaking from memory, I believe that they are recommendations by the Sorn Committee, and I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether this, in fact, is all that is to happen as a result of the sittings of the Sorn Committee? If not, perhaps he will tell us that it is likely that the Government will inform the House of their intentions concerning that Committee. After all, if the Government can introduce one or two minor changes in the system in Scotland, I think they might have time to consider some of the important recommendations of the Committee and indicate what it intends to do about them.
  There are one or two detailed points which I wish to raise on Clause 6 itself. I was surprised not to see the Church of Scotland mentioned. I understand that it is covered by the Clause, but why mention the Church of England and the Church in Wales but not the Church of Scotland? That seems to me to be quite wrong.
  Mr. Ross: The complexity of this Bill, and the silly way of doing things, can be seen from the fact that in subsection (7) we find that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are wiped out and something else is substituted.
  Mr. Willis: That shows how difficult it is to follow this procedure when we are dealing with English Measures and also with the situation in Scotland.
  Similarly, Clause 7 mentions the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I did not know that the Minister of Pensions was responsible for the provision in Scotland of invalid chairs and vehicles. We had some discussion in the House the other day about this matter of the functions of the Minister of Pensions and their transfer to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Yet when I look at subsection (7) I find that it says:
  "This section shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—(a) for the reference to the Minister of Health there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State."
  I notice, however, that in this Bill the Secretary of State is not given the position which we were recently told by the

  1259
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) he now holds in Scotland in regard to these things. Perhaps we shall have a little illumination on that subject.
  Then we ought to have some information concerning the effect on Scotland of Clause 5 (5). This, of course, deals with the new provision about the rating on English gas boards. In Clause 13 we are told that
  "… subsection (5) of section five and the Fourth Schedule, in so far as they affect the calculation of the amount of any Exchequer Equalisation Grant payable under Part II of the Act of 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954."
  will, of course, apply to Scotland. What effect will this have on the Exchequer Equalisation Grant in Scotland? Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could tell us.
  I think, too, that we ought to hear from him something about the effects of the main provisions on Scotland, because it seems to me that if these provisions come into force they will, as I understand from hon. Friends of mine representing English constituencies with large experience of these matters, affect the rateable value of England, and that will, in turn, effect the basis of the calculation on which the Exchequer Equalisation Grant for Scotland is determined. If that is not so, then, of course, we would be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman to that effect. I do not know whether he has got that.
  Mr. Ross: Repeat it.
  Mr. Willis: It is a very important matter, so I will repeat it.
  I understand that the main provisions of this Bill, which apply to England, set up a new system of rating and the drawing up of new valuation lists. The effect of those provisions will be to alter the total rateable value in England. If they alter the total rateable value in England, then they will alter the basis upon which is made the calculation for the Exchequer Equalisation Grant in Scotland.
  What will the effect be? Will it be of advantage to Scotland, or will it be a disadvantage, because we have already made several complaints that the amount we are receiving under the Exchequer
  1260
  Equalisation Grant is not sufficient? If this makes the position worse then I think we ought to be told so that we can make the necessary protests to the right quarters about it.
  We ought to have some guidance on these matters from the Under-Secretary. I shall be very glad to hear what he has to say on the points that I have put.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Mr. Ridsdale.
  Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Are we to get no elucidation on what this Bill will mean to Scotland? Are the Government saying nothing on the subject?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: On a point of order. Would it be in order if, through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we were to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to reply to the points raised before the debate comes to an end?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Chair.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Ridsdale: When the Parliamentary Secretary said that those who understood valuation were born and not made, he almost stopped me from speaking in this debate, because I am not an expert on this subject but speak as a layman wishing to bring the views of my constituency to the notice of the Minister. I quite understand that the object of this Bill is to go ahead with the provision of realistic lists that would be fair and uniform all over the country. But, from a pyschological aspect, I wish it were still possible to have the draft lists, because the Minister's promise to review which he made on 6th December would not then seem to be so ambiguous, and those appealing would feel at least that they were not appealing against something that to them was in the nature of a fait accompli.
  I make this point because this is the feeling among the small traders in my constituency who have written and spoken to me about the Bill. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary has made clear that the promise to review still holds good in exactly the same way as before the draft valuation lists were proposed, and that small traders will not

  1261
  be faced with a fait accompli but will be given sympathetic consideration in their appeals.
  I know that Clause 1 (8) gives the details of this scheme, but all the same I should like to hear the views of the Minister on this Clause. This promised review is especially important as far as my own constituency is concerned, because it contains a number of seaside resorts whose trade is seasonal. As this valuation is on a national basis, many small traders fear that insufficient attention will be paid by the Inland Revenue to the fact that trade in seaside resorts is seasonal, so I hope to hear from the Minister that special attention will be paid to this point.
  I am sure that the Minister has been made aware of the anxiety of the water companies about Clause 4 (8), particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). I do not wish to repeat his arguments, but I hope we shall hear that this Clause does not necessarily mean a large increase in rates to the water companies, which will be passed on to the ratepayer; for in the end it is the ratepayer who has to share the burden of this Clause, and I do not think it right to make one law for the gas industry and another law for the water industry.
  Finally, I want to make one general point on rating, especially as it affects the small trader and the small property owner; that is to say that the finances of this section of the community are extended as far as they can be and they are not in a position to face further increases in rates. I welcome the fact that the Minister has said he will review the entire question of local government finance. However, I do advise him to tread warily as far as the small man is concerned. For in my view the reason behind some of the legitimate fears which have been expressed in this Bill, is that once again the small man will have to pay. It will go a long way to have an assurance from the Minister that that is not the case.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: This is a small and unambitious Measure, and those who outside the House who might have been looking for some grand new revolutionary
  1262
  principle in rating law will be disappointed. The opportunity to do something about rating was missed in 1953 when another piece of patching was introduced on the system. Part of the 1948 valuation was then repealed, and the then Minister went back to 1939 values for some types of property—not all together to 1939 values, because there were other factors to be considered, which I said then would make it extremely difficult for those who wished to contest the assessments.
  It is a long time to go back to 1939, and many other factors have to be taken into account, such as ignoring the effect of the Rent Restriction Acts. The decision taken then was unfortunate, and I regretted it. At the time I thought the Minister treated the matter rather casually, because when doubts were put to him about those parts of the 1953 Act which affected certain residential property, and he was asked if he thought the system would work, he said:
  "I was asked, 'Will it work?' and I said, 'It had jolly well better, because the valuers have made it, and it would be their fault if it did not.' … What I meant was that Ministers are but dim and transient phantoms who flit across the stage, and these men who are unhappy enough to have devoted their lives to valuing"—
  I do not know if he had in mind the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin)—
  "will have to carry out this work long after I have forgotten all about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 30th June, 1953; c. 2137.]
  That seemed to me a not particularly happy attitude, and I have no doubt that the Government realise now the volume of protests which will arise from the occupiers of both commercial and residential properties. That no doubt has been a strong reason for their suggestion to abolish the draft lists.
  On this preliminary point I am certain that one day some Government will have to be courageous and take this matter in hand and get away from this archaic system of 1601 which is now so unfair as between one ratepayer and another. It is based upon principles which cannot be justified on general social grounds today. In its place we shall have to put something more realistic and equitable as between different types of ratepayers. As an example of the archaic nature of our present rating system and its confusion

  1263
  we must realise that in most parts of the country there has been no re-valuation for a quarter of a century. I would have thought that was a most dramatic piece of evidence of how unworkable is this system.
  I suppose that proposals to abolish draft valuation lists are bound to be attractive to any Government, and it is true that the individual ratepayer, be he a resident or be he a shopkeeper, still has the opportunity to appeal against assessments. It is the case, however, that organisations who have certain interests to look after will no longer have the opportunity which they have always had in previous valuations, of looking at the draft lists and comparing one assessment with another and so making their objections on behalf of their members.
  The point was so forcefully put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that I need not develop it, but there is a great difference between the appeal allowed to the individual ratepayer when he gets his assessment the first time and to those bodies whose duty it is to look after their members. These interests are seriously jeopardised.
  It has been argued that if there are no draft lists the numbers of appeals are likely to be less because, when the individual ratepayer actually finds out the amount he has to pay, he will probably find that it is not so much more compared with what he has been paying in the past, and therefore he is less likely to appeal. Though his assessment may be up: the poundage is likely to be down.
  I do not myself feel optimistic about that argument for two reasons. First, most local authorities who are at all progressive and enterprising will have had so many schemes held up through lack of finance that they will be bound to mop up as much of this extra revenue as they can with political safety, and although the poundage will fall to some extent, I do not think it is likely to fall by anything as much as some people have suggested.
  The second reason why I think it is an optimistic argument, certainly in the case of commercial properties, is based on what happened in Sheffield. Part of the shopping site in Sheffield has been revalued on current values. The Ministry know all about this—although I do not
  1264
  know whether the Minister did—because they tried to prevent this action being carried through by that local authority. However, the local authority has done it and current values for assessments are now in force for part of Sheffield for some of the commercial property. In six cases of shops of which I have personal information the amount of rates actually paid is doubled, even although the poundage has gone down. This is because the assessment is so very much higher. So for both those reasons I think the belief that there will be fewer appeals when the demands come in is not likely to be borne out in a large number of cases, and certainly not as far as commercial property is concerned.
  There is one case where I think the fact that draft lists will no longer be available will create a great hardship, and I should be grateful if the Minister could give some consideration to it. Under Section 11 (1) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, if a rating authority passes the requisite resolution it can in certain cases collect the amount of rates from the owner in lieu of the occupier. In that case, the rateable value must not exceed £13. As a matter of fact, the top limit is now £18 because of an amendment of the Local Government Act, 1948. As a result of the rise in valuation which must take place, what will happen is that a number of owners who have previously been paying rates will no longer be required to do so because they will be outside the limit authorised by the 1948 Act. Therefore, for the first time, a number of occupiers will find the rates levied directly on them, and they will know nothing about it until they get the rate demand. They will have no chance to see the draft lists because the lists are to be abolished.
  If it is possible to raise the rateable value above £18—that may be desirable in many cases because of the increased valuation throughout the country—there will be a number of owners who will be paying the rates instead of the occupier for the first time, and they will have no opportunity of knowing anything about it until the rate demands are sent to them. Something ought to be done about this. It may be possible in Committee to move an Amendment to provide for some standstill arrangement for one year until negotiations have gone on between owners, occupiers and local authorities.

  1265
  There will certainly be two categories of people at a very serious disadvantage because the draft lists are not available, and I hope the Minister will give us some indication tonight of what he is proposing to do in that case.
  I should also like to commend to the Minister the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). Although there may be a case, on grounds of administrative convenience, for abolishing the draft lists of the valuation, I hope consideration will be given to restoring them in future valuations, because the arguments which have been brought forward tonight to justify the step will not exist in the future.
  I hope also the Minister will give some indication of the rate burden which various types of property will carry in future. The Minister must have a fairly good estimate of what the rate burden on different classes of property will be. I am certain that the Inland Revenue and various other experts of his have worked it out fairly accurately. We know now that about £200 million or 60 per cent. of the rate revenue of the country comes from domestic occupiers and £68 million or 20 per cent. of the rate revenue from commercial properties. Many people have suggested that the domestic contribution will drop from 60 to 50 per cent. I am not opposed to that—I should be glad if that were the case—but we ought to have some indication of the new proportions. I am sure the Minister can tell us, and if he will do so it may in some cases help us to see the significance of other parts of the Bill and the real significance of not publishing draft lists.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) referred to two matters which are worrying local authorities. One was the calculation of the grant under the Education Act, 1944. The Minister asked whether the matter was covered by the Bill. I think my hon. Friend asked a legitimate question, because the Parliamentary Secretary, in introducing the Measure, said this Bill was the fourth instalment in altering the rating law since the end of the war. As a result of the Bill we shall for the first time know what the new valuations for the whole of the country amount to.
  It has been suggested by many who are well qualified to speak that the rate-
  1266
  able value of England and Wales will rise by as much as two-thirds. If it reaches that level, it means that the product of a 2s. 6d. rate, which is deducted from the Government's grant for education, will yield not £45 million as it does at present but £70 million. If that is the case, it means that the Government grant, which is at present 60 per cent. of the local authority approved expenditure plus £6 per pupil, is likely to go down, and this will be at the very time when education expenditure is bound to increase. This is a legitimate point to be raised on this Measure as the Bill is the last of the series reshaping our rating law since the end of the war. It would be very serious if local education authorities were to receive £30 million less in education grants than they have been receiving.
  A similar consideration arises with regard to payments in lieu of rates by transport and electricity undertakings. Assuming that there is an overall increase in valuation of two-thirds in England and Wales, there will be a reduction in poundage, and, consequently, there will be a reduction in contribution to local authorities. I suppose one answer may be "All these matters will be looked at when the review of Exchequer grants is made," but that may take a very long time, and it may be financially imperative that some interim help is given to local authorities by the Government. Those of us who are in touch with the matter know that local authority finance is already at the breakdown point and cannot be strained very much further. If there is a substantial reduction in grant either under the Education Act or in lieu of rates from the two undertakings that I have mentioned, the point of real collapse will be reached.
  There is another point that I wish to put to the Minister, although it does not arise directly out of the Bill, but it must be considered in relation to it. I want to know whether there will be a similar revaluation of property for Income Tax purposes under Schedule A as is now taking place in connection with rateable values. This is very important; it will be realised how the two matters are tied up together.
  With regard to Clause 6, everyone who has spoken has welcomed the general idea of giving charitable or religious organisations rate relief particularly where their

  1267
  premises perform a social service on behalf of the community. However, everyone except the Parliamentary Secretary has condemned the discretionary proposals for local authorities, and I hope the Minister will deal with the point.
  I now come to a minor matter. I notice that the Poor Rate Exemption Act, 1833, is to be repealed, but not the Sunday and Ragged Schools (Exemption from Rating) Act, 1869. I should like to know why this is. I do not suppose that the House will be wildly enthusiastic over the fact that sewers and edifices for housing invalid chairs are to be exempt, but there is one interesting and common sense proposal in the Fifth Schedule which I should like, sympathetically, to commend to the House because its practical result will be important and helpful. Where two of the appointed members of a local valuation court turn up and not three, in future it will be possible to proceed if both parties agree. Many of us have had experience of sitting as members of or appearing before local valuation courts and finding the whole proceedings abortive if one member does not arrive. It is to be hoped that the two members who turn up will agree now, because if they do not there will have to be a rehearing. It is a small but useful practical contribution for making the machinery of the valuation work better.
  I conclude, as I started, by hoping that the time will not be too far distant when we shall be able entirely to recast our rating system, when we shall see industrial properties pay their proper contribution, amongst many other things, and when there will be less sense of injustice and unfairness between one ratepayer and another which is undoubtedly the general feeling in the country at the present time.
  8.10 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): It might be for the convenience of the House if I intervene briefly to reply to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I would have risen earlier, but one has to have a care not to rise too soon in case other hon Members want to participate in the debate. It is always a nice thing to judge what is the right time to intervene, and if I have misjudged on this occasion apologise to hon. Members opposite for
  1268
  not speaking earlier. I was asked a number of questions by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, the first of which was how Scotland was affected by the Bill. The hon. Member then proceeded to answer his own question. However, I would endeavour to confirm what he said.
  It is quite correct that the recommendations in Clauses 6 and 8 were contained in the Report of the Sorn Committee. The Government thought that this was a convenient opportunity to put those recommendations into legal form. These two provisions relate to the relief from rates of churches and church halls and the rating of police stations. The House will know that under present Scottish law churches are generally exempt from rates. Except, however, in the case of the four Scottish cities and the burgh of Airdrie, there is no provision for relief for church halls. Hon. Members know that under modern conditions church halls are used for much church work on weekdays and other occasions. The new type of church being built in the new housing areas is partly a hall and partly a church. It is used for one purpose during the week and another purpose on Sunday.
  Mr. Ross: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that point, he will know that for England and Wales the Churches are specified, the Church of England and the Church in Wales. But for Scotland there is merely the general statement, "places of public religious worship." Will he tell me how wide that goes? I do not want to elaborate the number of churches in Scotland.
  Commander Galbraith: Perhaps that is the reason it was put in that form. It quite clearly states "Places of public religious worship," and I do not think it can be defined wider than that. It includes all places of public religious worship, and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was perfectly capable of defining that for himself.
  Clause 6 takes account of the change in the custom of using churches and church halls. The effect of the Clause is that the churches and halls and other buildings used for the purposes of religious organisations are exempted from rates, and if those places are let to

  1269
  other organisations the value on which rates are levied is restricted to the profit derived from the letting. The Clause also gives power to rating authorities to grant reliefs from rates, wholly or partly, on premises used for religious, charitable. educational and philanthropic purposes. The House will realise that that power is permissive, and it will be for each local authority to decide the merits of any application for relief which is made to it. There is no such provision in the general Scottish law, although some local authorities have powers under their local Acts to relieve certain charities of rates. I am sure that the House will agree that this is a desirable innovation.
  Mr. Ross: Clause 6 (7) (d) says:
  "The last preceding subsection shall be omitted."
  Is he satisfied that in omitting subsection (6) in the case of Scotland he will not thereby be repealing private legislation which may have been granting exemption from rates to some other institutions?
  Commander Galbraith: If we had not been satisfied, it would not have been in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should realise that.
  I next refer to police property other than dwelling houses. Such property has been held by the courts to be exempt from rates, because it is deemed to be used for purposes of the Crown, but as it is not in the occupation of the Crown no contribution in lieu of rates is paid on it by the Government. Under Clause 8 police authorities are now empowered to make contributions in respect of premises they occupy and these contributions will rank for police grant. The House will know that that has been a question which local authorities have been pressing for a considerable time. The next question that was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was why the Church of Scotland was not mentioned. That question has been answered in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. Further than that, I was asked why the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is included. Hon. Members know perfectly well—
  Mr. Manuel: We just wanted to hear you tell us.
  Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to tell him. He
  1270
  has only to read Clause 7 (1) where he will see that the Secretary of State for Scotland came into the picture only at 31st August, 1953. I really think that the hon. Gentleman should have been aware of that.
  The next question I was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was about the financial provisions. I refer him to Clause 10 which provides for payment out of monies provided by Parliament of any increase in the police grant as a result of the provisions of Clause 8 for the payment of contributions in lieu of rates on police stations, and of any increase in the Exchequer Equalisation Grant attributable to the Bill. Hon. Members will be glad to know that there is a possibility that the Exchequer Equalisation Grant may be increased, and that arises, of course, partly from the new rating reliefs contained in Clauses 6 and 7 and partly from the provisions for the rating of gas boards in England and Wales. This new arrangement for the payment of rates on gas undertakings is to be applied retrospectively as from 1st April, 1952. If as a result the totals of rateable value in county boroughs or counties in England and Wales are reduced, then English local authorities may become entitled to larger grants. Payments already made for 1952–53 and subsequent years may then have to be adjusted. If that happens, it will follow that additional grants will have to be paid in Scotland also for 1952–53 through the formula as it used to be contained in Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, and for subsequent years through the Goschen Formula as provided in the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954. That is the situation about the application of Clause 5 (5) to Scotland and its effect on Exchequer grants.
  Those were the questions which the hon. Gentleman addressed to me. Other provisions which apply to Scotland are those relating to the housing of invalid chairs and other machines of that nature and also to sewers. These are quite useful provisions applicable to Scotland, and I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.
  Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer one question? He must have been made aware of the

  1271
  volume of criticism in Scotland of the plan to exempt sewers but to leave water unexempted. Will he comment upon that?
  Commander Galbraith: I was dealing with what is in the Bill. It deals with sewers and not with water.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Collins: It would be almost improper for me to intervene in the exchange of pleasantries between the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friends on this side of the House who represent Scottish constituencies, but I should like to agree with the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) who asked why, if sewers are to be exempted in Scotland, water should not be. That is a distinct anomaly in the Bill.
  It would be an unwarrantable reflection on hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for me to suggest that I could add anything new at this late stage on any major point in this small Bill, which has been fully discussed. However, there are some advantages in repetition and in introducing a matter from a new angle.
  I should like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that yesterday at Question Time I asked whether he could give an assurance that his right hon. Friend adhered to the promise that he had made that, if, when the full effects of revaluation were known, it was necessary to make any other changes, he would do so. He immediately, and very firmly, gave that assurance which, indeed, he repeated again today. However, it seems to me that people who are as experienced as members of the National Chamber of Trade—who have been on many deputations, who know how to value words, and especially how to weigh and value the words of Ministers—must have felt that when they got that assurance it meant that if there was an apparent injustice as a result of the Minister's proposals, it would be put right.
  I have in my hand a letter not from the National Chamber of Trade but from the London Retail Meat Traders' Association. It is dated 22nd March, after the Bill had been published, and it repeats
  1272
  the assurance given by the Minister and adds:
  "The proposals contained in this Bill will make it quite impossible for the Minister to comply with his above quoted assurance until after much damage has been done."
  That accords with my own view of the situation. I do not doubt that the Minister's assurance is genuine. I do not doubt his integrity in this matter. I feel, however, that we should have what I failed to get earlier in the debate when I intervened to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question—a statement from the Minister tonight on exactly how he proposes to make such changes as may be found necessary to implement the assurance he has given.
  If that statement is not made, then a difficult and unsatisfactory position will be created. This lends justification to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that the Government dare not give an indication of what these revaluations will mean until after the General Election. I can well imagine that all the hon. Members opposite who have spoken would have made very different speeches if we had introduced a Bill of this kind and if a Minister from our party had given an assurance and had, so far, failed as lamentably to indicate how the assurance would be carried out.
  There have been some general criticisms of the Bill. It is obvious that it does not even attempt to provide us with a rational and equitable rating system. It does not seek to redress the mass of anomalies which has arisen in decades of rating change and usage. In fact, it creates considerable and serious new anomalies as between the gas and water undertakings, and in many other ways. Whatever is said by the Minister, this Bill seriously impairs the effectiveness of the right of appeal, because ratepayers cannot appeal before the rate is levied on them. That is a very different situation from the one which we have at present.
  There are one or two comparatively minor points which should be considered, and which I have not heard mentioned so far. One is about the heavy burden of work which will be placed on the rating authority, the local authority, by the new procedure. It will involve the production of new rate books with com

  1273
  pletely revised assessments and it will cause great administrative pressure. A longer period of time than the three months suggested should be allowed. The hon. Member for Sowerby made a suggestion about how that period could be lengthened. I hope that that will be considered.
  I represent two small boroughs which, between them, have about 29,000 hereditaments. Imagine the task that there will be in the very short period of three months now that the old procedure of draft lists open to inspection is to be dispensed with. The ratepayer's first intimation will be simultaneous in effect with knowledge of both the new assessment and the new rate poundage.
  It is obvious that that new procedure has been adopted because of the belief which in many cases may be justified, that although the assessment will increase the poundage will be less; and therefore, in effect, the amount that the ratepayer will have to pay will show very little actual financial change, and that, if the ratepayer knows the assessment and the poundage together, there will not be such a large number of appeals. I think that the Minister is seriously underestimating the possible number of objections. It is almost certain. Possible increases of 60 per cent. in rates have been quoted. There will unquestionably be appeals in those cases.
  There are other cases. An ordinary householder who perhaps owns his house may not, because of lower poundage, actually have to pay more in rates, but if his assessment—his rateable value—goes up so also will his Schedule A assessment. There will be a large number of appeals on that basis. I do not think they have been allowed for, or thought of, and I have not heard them mentioned earlier today.
  The provision whereby a ratepayer who makes a proposal against the assessment shall pay only the amount paid the previous year until the objection is determined will make the valuation list most unstable. The financial officers of the rating authority will find it very difficult accurately to estimate the probable rate income. It will be difficult, if not impossible to forecast. Whichever way one looks at it such an arrangement means bad finance. Because of the considerable period which could elapse under the pro
  1274
  cedural provision, what one might call the unstable ratepayer could use this provision to advantage. I think that rating authorities will find that considerable arrears, and possibly losses, will accrue.
  It is obvious that when this Bill becomes an Act the valuation officer will have rather more extended powers than at present, and more time to take any action he deems necessary but, as I have pointed out, months can elapse before the determination of a proposal. Meanwhile, the rating authority can only collect the amount of rate which was payable in the preceding year. In boroughs such as I represent—Shoreditch and Finsbury—there is a considerable movement of commercial businesses. That could present a real problem in the collection of rates. Then, again, the admission as evidence of any written document might possibly prejudice a ratepayer if anything of an informal nature, and not as expressly provided by statute were submitted.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the arrangements for gas undertakings. Those provisions will have a serious effect on the rating revenue of some authorities—those who are converting from gas to electric light. In some cases it may well mean that a very considerable rebate may have to be paid to gas undertakings in respect of this period between, I think, 1948 and 1955. I am informed that this may have considerable repercussions on the revenues of the boroughs I represent.
  It is the application of Clause 6 of the Bill which has invited most comment. It has met with general approval in the House. Nevertheless, it has raised most doubts and questions in the minds of us all. It will be very difficult to amend and frame Clause 6 so as to meet not only the views that have been expressed by hon. Members but to remove, as far as possible, the doubts which will otherwise exist as to its application.
  I think it was the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) who put in a special plea for sports grounds, rugby grounds and the like, and for nonprofit making organisations. Most professional football clubs are non-profit making—at least, they do not make any profit, except in a particularly hectic season—but I do not imagine that the Clause will be drawn wide enough to

  1275
  include them. On the other hand, I hope that the Minister will indicate the kind of charitable organisation having religious or educational foundations that he has in mind.
  For example, would it include the kind of boys' club with which many of us are familiar? Such a club probably has a religious foundation in that it at least sprang from its attachment to a church. It qualifies for grants from the Ministry of Education. It is inspected by that Ministry and has educational pursuits. It is entirely non-profit making but its principal activities are, perhaps, the sporting activities of the boys.
  Would such organisations be exempt from rates under the provisions of this Clause? We should like to hear from the Minister about that. Will he say whether he is willing to consider in Committee how this Clause can be more carefully framed? It is unfair and, I think, unwise to place on local authorities the burden of decision or choice in this matter with a resultant variation as between one local authority and another. Indeed, we might get a variation of decision in the same local authority if its representation and political colour were to change. That would be most undesirable.
  This is about the one good Clause in the Bill. It is one that I welcome most and which will help a number of very deserving causes, but unless it is made crystal clear how it is intended to be applied, and unless we bend our joint efforts to its improvement in Committee, it will lead to very considerable difficulty and controversy, and will cause a good deal of heart-burning and trouble to a number of well-meaning causes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with those points and will say how the assurances which have been given will be implemented.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mt. F. Blackburn: I wish to deal briefly with Clauses 1 and 5. I think the Government have made a mistake in introducing a new system and in seeking to abolish the procedure which was laid down under the 1948 Act. The small shopkeepers and business people are suffering from a sense of injustice, and I do not think this is very healthy.
  1276
  We have not yet cleared up the question of the assurance given by the Minister. We have cleared it up to the extent that we are informed that one of his promises to the National Chamber of Trade was misunderstood by that body. The Minister said that he referred not to the draft valuation lists but to the valuations. I am not sure, however, that that makes a great deal of difference.
  In this House on 6th December the Minister said:
  "I can, however, give an assurance that, as soon as the effects of the forthcoming revaluation can be fully measured the Government will review the position and will consider whether any changes are necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 21.]
  I apologise for reading that statement again, as it has already been referred to, but it is necessary to do so because the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has said that that statement could not have referred to any valuation list except the valuation list which comes into effect after 1st April, 1956. I think I am quoting the hon. Gentleman correctly.
  Mr. Powell: What I actually said was that the effects could not be fully measured—in fact, those are the Minister's words—until the new rate had been made.
  Mr. Blackburn: That is the point I am making. If we are going to delay until after the new rate has been levied and until after the valuation lists have been published, the position of the local authorities will be made still more difficult. They are going to be in enough difficulty as it is because of the appeals which will be made. Apparently they are also going to be threatened, "The Minister is going to review all this and he may upset the whole apple cart again."
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that by doing away with the draft valuation lists we should have fewer appeals. Are we quite sure that that is correct? The people who are to have increased valuations will also pay increased rates, whether the rate poundage goes down or not; because if some valuations go up and others remain stationary, those people whose valuations go up will pay higher rates, irrespective of what happens to the rate poundage. We shall

  1277
  then have exactly the same number of appeals, and local authorities will be in an extremely difficult position because they will not know how much they will collect in rates. Surely hon. Members opposite have had this point stressed to them by the treasurers of local authorities. Local authorities will be in difficulty during that year and, whatever happens to Clause 1, the Ministry ought to have another look at it.
  I have one other point to make, and I will make it briefly because other hon. Members wish to speak. It concerns Clause 5 and the rating of gas boards. This has been referred to more than once, but no one has made the point which I want to make. I will not go into the complicated way in which the valuation is worked out on gas undertakings, but I think it is based upon two factors—first, manufacture and, second, distribution. That will work unfairly for some undertakings which have been manufacturers of gas in the past.
  We know that the policy of the gas boards is to concentrate manufacture in fewer units, and some of these undertakings are now being used not for manufacturing purposes but for storage purposes. They will receive an allowance in the matter of distribution but no allowance for storage. Yet the gas undertaking covers as great an area as it did when it was manufacturing gas.
  Would the Minister make some comment on this aspect in his reply? In view of the concentration of manufacture, I am sure that a number of smaller gas undertakings, which were manufacturers in the past, will be considerably the losers over their rates.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: In view of a number of things which have been said about local authorities, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I think the position of local authorities at the moment ought to be stated. In his peroration my hon. Friend said that we were to have a great new valuation list—one which the local authorities had not "monkeyed about with." He might at least have said "some local authorities."
  Generally speaking this question of valuation is very difficult, and local
  1278
  authorities made great efforts in the past to deal with it. Let me give an example. The Parliamentary Secretary represents Ashford. For a time I was a member of the valuation committee of the county of Kent, and we had trouble with Ashford in respect of the valuation of prefabricated dwellings. The problem was to consider the case of the prefabricated dwelling house and to establish one level of assessment for it in the county of Kent. That took over 12 months. Indeed, local authorities have taken a great deal of trouble to get uniformity in valuation. Let us be quite clear about that.
  This was not a question of local authorities doing something wrong or responding to pressure—certainly not in the post-war years or immediate pre-war years. It was a question of a national pattern of valuation which had grown up and which varied from place to place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) considered the position of certain authorities in what, before the war, were known as depressed areas, and tried to make them into viable authorities which could meet their obligation and provide education for the children and all the other social amenities about which we are all agreed. Of course, in 1948 he had to introduce an equalisation system. The system had wide disparities. There was wide injustice as between one authority and another. In 1945, with the upsurge of rebuilding of the social services, grants-in-aid had to be provided.
  If justice is to be done to authorities like the City of Leeds, which considers it is disadvantaged to the tune of £313,000 a year, of course we must have uniformity of assessment throughout the country. There is something rather foolish when Birmingham can get £1 million grant whereas Leeds gets nothing at all. Even in the county of Kent there is disparity between East Kent, Middle Kent and West Kent. There are seaside resorts and industrial areas and, under the present system, there is no justice between different parts of the county. When we start grumbling about shopkeepers and individual ratepayers we ought to bear in mind the broad, overall pattern of rating.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) spoke about equity between ratepayer and ratepayer,

  1279
  but he ought to remember another kind of equity. He ought to remember that the purpose of rating is to find sufficient funds to give to every man, woman and child in every county some sort of chance, in equity, from the public moneys available. Whether one is born in Westmorland or Westminster the services ought to be comparable and the grants to provide those services ought to be comparable. In effect, of course, we did not have that because everything had got out of gear. I do not think that was the fault of the local authority. It was rather a matter of history. Merthyr Tydvil, with its very low assessment, is a matter of the history of depression in the inter-war years.
  I am glad that we are to have a system of assessment which is above reproach and about which my hon. Friend cannot say that it has been monkeyed about by the local authorities, but by which we shall have some sort of national yardstick. Equity between ratepayer and ratepayer was breached in 1929 when de-rating came in. Whatever arguments there may have been for derating then, there has been none since the war.
  Mr. Powell: In 1948?
  Mr. Pannell: No, I do not think there has been any argument for the derating of industry since the war.
  Mr. Powell: Why did the Labour Government not abolish it?
  Mr. Pannell: I think I should be out of order if I replied to that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale thought he had slaughtered the hypothetical tenant by giving birth to a hypothetical builder.
  Sir I. Horobin: A hypothetical Prime Minister?
  Mr. Pannell: I must not be drawn into any argument. That system did not work at all. I think I made my position plain during the Committee stage of a previous Bill. Surely if we are considering equity of rating we must see that there is no justice when the borough of Burton-on-Trent pays the highest sewerage rate in the world because beer is brewed there. In effect, the brewing industry costs Burton an awful lot of money, an industry which pays dividends of 25 per cent. in good and bad years
  1280
  and enjoys derating. That sort of thing is not sensible today, and surely, as one of the major measures of reforming our rating system, we will have to consider the re-rating of industry.
  I believe that at the present time local authorities lose £90 million a year because of derating. If one considers the amount that industry pays in Income Tax, which it pays under another system of rating, and if that sum were given as a grant by the Treasury, local authorities would still be £60 million out of pocket. I should say that this is the greatest festering sore among local authorities which are completely disadvantaged by it. We cannot consider the merits or justice of this thing merely in the concept of the Bill. There has been a need for a change of this kind since 1948 in order to give justice to places like Leeds and to bring the Exchequer Equalisation Grant to something like an equitable basis.
  The Minister has been less than frank. He has replied to the National Chamber of Trade in terms of great ambiguity. I wonder what would have happened had a Labour Government introduced a Clause such as Clause 1. We would have heard a lot of talk from hon. Members opposite about the liberty of the subject and the rights of the individual. That theme is always the sacred cow of hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite, even when those rights are exercised in an anti-social manner. One remembers, of course. the Lord and Black affair of the £100,000 and the remission of taxation. On that occasion the same sort of people on the benches opposite caused a terrible row about the rights of the individual.
  I can understand all the reasons that the Government have given, but the promise which was implicit in previous legislation and was implicit in what hon. Members opposite thought the Minister had said—perhaps they heard too much or the Minister said too little—is forgotten, and ratepayers are to be denied the right to examine the draft valuation list.
  This is a complex subject. The state of the House does not suggest that a great number of Members desire to discuss valuation. That, however, is not the main point. All sorts of people live by advising others on valuation and other matters. As my hon. Friend the Member

  1281
  for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, the thing which should have been done was to ensure that people would know in good time. Whether they have been dealt with in equity is not determined by the amount of money that they will be paying on the rate call next April, but as to how they are assessed one with another.
  We are arguing today that the rating system is unfair because the Exchequer Equalisation Grant has been founded on an inequitable system. If we follow an abstract system of justice, its result must depend upon how we complete it and how one shopkeeper stands in relation to another. In effect, the Minister has disagreed and has said that it is inconvenient that justice should be seen to be done. What he is saying is, "Let us therefore blanket it all out. Let them lay down an arrangement for so many pence in the £, as the case may be, and in the general confusion afterwards we will let them pay what they paid last year but we will have a dog fight as the months go by."
  Any number of local authorities and ratepayers will think of all this as merely an electoral manœuvre. It is a manœuvre performed at the very time when an election is expected soon—perhaps, in October.
  I am reinforced in that view by the chairman of a local finance committee. I went on a sentimental journey the other day to listen to him speak at a meeting of a rate making authority with which I have been associated. I have here a note of his speech. Even making allowances for the legitimate exaggerations in advocacy of chairmen of finance committees, I think this chairman fairly supports my view. This is what he said:
  "The Bill proposes to take away the right of every ratepayer to know what the rateable value of his property is before the rate is made, and strikes a very severe blow at the very foundations of the rating system which has been built up over the past 350 years, and I undertake to follow this up with all the force at the disposal of the council to restore the right of the individual."
  He got applause for that, I can tell the House, for I was there. This is a Labour chairman of that finance committee, and he went on:
  "A decision not to afford the public an opportunity to find out what their new assessments are to be will, of course, seriously delay the hearing and settlement of their objections"—
  1282
  and so on. I have no doubt that that speech was symptomatic of a feeling all over the country, and I think it was well worth quoting what that chairman of a local finance committee thinks, because, no doubt, it is what most if not all other chairmen of other local finance committees think.
  Certainly the local authorities feel that they have been double-crossed. It is not the right hon. Gentleman or his able Parliamentary Secretary who will carry the can. Nor will it be the last Minister of Housing and Local Government. I always said that he would not stay at that Ministry to do what is required to be done. I always knew he would go to some foreign field, although he may have gone by way of defence. I do not know whether the present Minister will stay at that Ministry, or whether he will be going. He may have gone by the morning, and nobody could care less. In any event, he will not carry the can; he will leave the local authorities holding the can.
  It is unsatisfactory that our rating system should rest on three different assessment bases, derating, which I have already criticised and shall not labour here, the distributive trade, with the question of what is to happen to business undertakings and shops, and the assessment of houses on 30th June, 1939, values. It is extremely difficult for those of us who are or have been chairmen of rating committees to explain these things. Generally speaking, this is a contradiction in the law, which is not understood by the ordinary ratepayers. The law ought to be equitable, simple, and, as far as possible, uniform. So I hope that next year we shall move towards a system of valuation which will stimulate the greatest possible degree of confidence, and that the Exchequer Equalisation Grants will be levelled out. I hope that this Bill will be the precursor of a Measure which will make an overhaul of the financial structure of local government.
  Local government is not the junior partner in government. It is an equal partner in government, carrying on great services, the great constructive services. Most of the proceeds of the Income Tax, for instance, go to pay for wars past and present, but the finances of local government are for great undertakings which have never harmed a living soul.

  1283
  [Interruption.] In spite of what the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) said about wanting to sit up day and night with a machine gun to drive local authorities off playingfields and so on in the public interest, I say that broadly speaking the great resources of local government are devoted to constructive undertakings. Local government is the State in action, carrying on the collective will of a democracy. Local government now, as for a long time past, provides those services which make the difference between civilisation and barbarity. The finances of local government need and deserve the earnest attention of this House, and I hope that next year we shall have another and a better Bill to replace this patchwork Bill.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: How very true those observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) were. I think we all agree that a comprehensive Measure dealing with the finances of local government is badly needed, but what puzzles me is why we are having this Bill now, why it has in it the particular selection of things that it happens to have, and why it does not have quite a number of other things.
  First, why are we having it now? I can see no particular reason why the provisions of most of the Clauses should be brought forward now instead of six months ago or six months ahead. The timing, I suppose, must depend upon the first Clause of the Bill which, of course, removes the draft valuation lists. Let us be quite clear about it. Every ratepayer had, from 1925 onwards and continued through the 1948 Act, two rights. One right was to object to the draft valuation list when it came out. The other, when the valuation list came out, was to put forward proposals to have it altered.
  This moment has been chosen by the Government to remove the former and possibly the more important of those two rights. Certainly, in the circumstances of the moment it is a very important right. We were told—and this was fervently supported by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who always comes to the support of the Government Front Bench—that this curious process benefited the ratepayer because it would save his
  1284
  making a lot of useless and expensive appeals, and it would benefit the local authority for reasons which, quite frankly, I could not appreciate.
  Let us take the case of the ratepayer. Is the Tory Party going to say in future, about appeals in administrative matters, that it is so certain that they will fail that it is helping the ratepayer, or the citizen in any capacity, to remove the opportunity from him of wasting his money? That has been said today, and that has been the only defence that I have heard, other than the defence that this was administratively necessary. If it is so administratively necessary, why have the Government taken so remarkably long to find that out? These valuations have been going on for a long time and I share the belief of a great many hon. Members that they are either complete or practically complete. I ask the Minister to tell the House if I am wrong in thinking so.
  Is there any real reason why the results of these assessments should not appear quite soon and why, if time could have been saved in that way, an extension of time should not have been given, a longer time for appeals afterwards which would have enabled the lists to have come into force on the very date on which they were due to come into force? That is the first question.
  The next question is in connection with a statement that was made in answer to a Question in the House and which, of course, is related to the campaign which was being carried on at the time by the National Chamber of Trade. I have the printed circular of the National Chamber of Trade which was sent out at the time, quoting that statement in full and dated three days later. Nobody can say that it was not a document of the most friendly character towards the Party opposite. It refers to a statement issued by the research department of the Conservative Party—things to which I have no access but which, no doubt, the National Chamber of Trade can examine without any difficulty.
  It goes on to quote the Minister's statement, the unqualified assurance that
  "… as soon as the effects of the forthcoming revaluation can be fully measured, the Government will review the position and will consider whether any changes are necessary."

  1285
  That is a perfectly exact quotation. It goes on to say:
  "After that, our next move, therefore, will be to circulate to all affiliated organisations a form of questionnaire designed to make available to us immediately the valuation lists are published full details of present and future valuations."
  I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's purely verbal answer referred to valuation lists and not to draft valuation lists.
  I am not at all surprised that there has been a bit of confusion. I do not believe that the National Chamber of Trade knows one from the other. Quite clearly, it is referring to the first publication of the valuation lists in the form of draft valuation lists. It intended to act on it. The National Chamber of Trade read the Minister's statement and understood it to mean that he would take account of the early results that it would collect from its own members, of the way in which valuation was working.
  It was not a question of waiting until the rates were levelled. It was a question of seeing what these lists were like as a whole, and that was the call for immediate action. That was the conclusion to which the National Chamber of Trade came after the interview with the Minister, in which we are told that he treated its representatives very nicely indeed. They had an hour and a quarter's talk with the right hon. Gentleman. They say that their view was put to him and very full discussed. I do not know who had the better time in that, but there is no doubt that it was a full discussion and what they expected and wanted.
  I want to put this to the right hon. Gentleman. I accept, as does everyone in the House, his statement that no word was said about draft valuations, but did he or did he not know at that time that that highly important safeguard was to be abolished and, if he did know, was it quite fair not to make that clear at the time to the National Chamber of Trade? Was that the right way of dealing with people who so zealously consulted the statement issued by the research department of the Conservative Party, whatever it was, and who, quite obviously, are keen and almost blind supporters of his? I do not like the look of it. No doubt the Minister will give us a complete explanation.
  1286
  I am not saying that he said anything to them that was untrue, but did he not think that it was right and proper that they should know that that operation was to take place, or was it the case that the Government had not made up their minds at that time to abolish the draft valuation lists? That is always a possibility. One just wonders in that case what is it that made them change their minds.
  Let us look at the results of what the valuation lists are to be. We do not want the technical evidence, valuable and useful as it is, that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) quoted to us. We only need use our horse sense, and it is very rarely that we can use that in rating matters. If a whole lot of property is valued in 1934, then some of it is revalued on a 1939 basis and some more on today's basis, there will be considerable changes by 1939, but the changes on today's valuation will obviously be very much larger.
  What will happen in this case is quite obvious. There will be changes with the houses, but changes that will be a great deal smaller than the changes in shops. Somebody described this as a revolutionary change. It is bound to be so. If we are going to go back to the valuation of 20 years ago and start revaluing on this sort of basis, it does not require any great technical knowledge to see that we shall considerably upset the whole shooting match.
  As the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) said, they do not know what is coming to them. The hon. Member quoted one or two cases about charities, but the same goes for other people. I should not say that this is what might be called electoral dynamite. It is more likely to be an electoral Chinese cracker which will pop all over the place, hitting here and there, and goodness knows where it will go. That is bound to be the effect of it, and I am all for it.
  I thought that what the hon. Member for Oldham, East said about some of the assessments on his own charities, present and prospective, was a good illustration, but there are a great many more bad and inaccurate assessments than that all over the country. as we all know. Of course, these properties ought to be assessed rightly. Now we are told that

  1287
  they will be assessed all right, but that nobody ought to be allowed to complain until he sees what the rate poundage will be. That really shocks me. These assessments are supposed to be the answer to the question, putting it very broadly, of what the property is worth. We may not have got the question right, and that is our fault, but that is what it is supposed to be. The assessments are supposed to be factual.
  If a man concludes that his property or group of property is over-assessed or under-assessed, surely the moment for him to say so is when the assessment is made and he should not have to wait until the rate poundage is ascertained. It is very like telling a man who is to have his head cut off that he must not examine the sword until he knows how hard it is to be used.
  One must bear in mind the facts in these matters, and to the truth of the work of the evaluators, and must think of the rights of the citizen to object to the material facts. I see no reason for removing this right. I do not believe that the administrative difficulties are such that they cannot be removed. I have become very suspicious about what happened at the interview in December, 1954. I wonder how much the Minister himself knew at that time and how much he thought fit to say to the innocent shopkeepers, fervent Tories, who came to see him and told him everything in an hour and a quarter, poor man.
  It is said, "Does it matter?" It does matter. Let us see what will happen. If these were a few small changes it would not matter very much, but they will be very considerable changes. The ratepayers do not know what is coming to them, to use the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, East again. When they find out, the local authorities will have been sitting on the lists from December to April. When they find out what is coming to them, in the form not of an assessment but of an actual rate demand, or, at any rate, the making of a rate, does anybody suppose for a minute that they are not going to appeal very nearly as much as they would have done anyway?
  Is any ratepayer prepared to believe that the poundage levied by any given local authority stays put? I have not yet
  1288
  met such a ratepayer. The poundage goes up one year, and sometimes, though very rarely, it comes down the following year. The ratepayer is not a fool. He knows that the amount of his assessment is the measure of, or one factor in, his liability.
  Local authorities cannot tell where they are until the general run of the appeals and the general question of principle about them have been settled. I cannot imagine anything better calculated to introduce complete confusion into local authority finance than to abolish a right which was put in for the very purpose, from the point of view of local authorities, of avoiding just that confusion. The draft valuation list was introduced in July, 1925, very quietly in Committee upstairs by Sir Kingsley Wood. Nobody said much about it; it just crept in. It took the place of a preliminary statement which used to be the corresponding thing, and the preliminary statement disappeared because that had been connected with the Revenue officers and the Revenue officers were being dissociated by the 1925 Bill from some of their former functions. It so happened that on Second Reading the Lord Privy Seal quoted—if I may break the rules and speak in Latin for a moment—the well-known line:
  Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.
  If you kick the Inland Revenue out one way it is sure to come in another, and here it is now in the Central Valuation Office. It was not any good, and they might have known it, but the draft list did represent, as did the preliminary statement before, not only a real right to the ratepayer, but a method of getting things sufficiently tidied before it came to making and levying the rent to prevent the confusion of the finances of the local authority which this somewhat improvident withdrawal of the right will certainly cause.
  I object, and I believe my right hon. and hon. Friends object, to this Clause as improvident, unnecessary and dictated, we strongly suspect, by political considerations which perhaps I had better do no more than hint at. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is an election in prospect and that we have to be careful of Chinese crackers at election times—better put them off until afterwards.

  1289
  As for the other Clauses in the Bill, there is one other matter which shocks me. It is the sinking funds provision, and occurs in Clause 5 (8). It alters the existing law, and if I may put it into Income Tax language, it seems to me to substitute the wear and tear basis for the renewal one, and I suspect that the Inland Revenue has had a word about this.
  I hope the Minister will answer this question is there at this moment a case before the courts to determine this very point, and was that case brought at the suggestion of the Inland Revenue or of any other Government Department? I am sure the Minister will agree with me that if that were the case the introduction of this provision in a Statute at this moment requires particular justification which he will, no doubt, provide.
  The important point about the gas boards is that this is obviously not in principle entirely novel. Indeed, it is far from that, being the application to a complicated and difficult state of affairs of a principle which has been applied in a good many other ways previously. Whatever may have been said to, or not said to, or accepted by the local authorities concerned, I should have thought it was the merest wisdom to provide that there was a regular review and an early one in this case, perhaps at the end of five years of the actual working of this Clause. I do not think it is a thing about which we can be sufficiently certain to dogmatise and meanwhile I note, again with a little suspicion, that the gas boards are getting away with the 1949 basis.
  The year 1949 is like the earlier years of my own life—it is constantly getting more remote, and, of course, the more remote it gets, the greater the advantage that the gas boards get that way, and the less the advantage that the rating authority and the other ratepayers, including the domestic ratepayers, get in these matters. It is bad economics, bad politics and bad sense to give artificial advantages to bodies of this sort, however important, however essential, however national the services that they may be rendering, instead of trying to reach as equal a basis of assessment as possible when there are different subjects with which to deal.
  Clause 6 has attracted a lot of fun. It has died from the Chinese torture called a thousand cuts. One does not put a
  1290
  knife into anybody, but just takes little bits of skin from one part of the body after another until the victim perishes. This Clause about the exemption of charitable hereditaments has had just that effect. I do not believe it right, on a Second Reading debate, to tie oneself, or to attempt to tie oneself, to an answer, but obviously it is most unsatisfactory that the rating authority should have this discretionary power.
  I should have thought that it was almost equally unsatisfactory in dealing with this kind of property to make property, which is entitled to exemption from Schedule A Income Tax because it is charitable, dependent on discretion in rating. Although what is dealt with here is rather wider than that and some property may require a measure of discretion, some property should certainly be absolutely exempt and a very convenient line to take would be the charitable exemption under the Income Tax provisions.
  Although I am no great upholder of Ministerial discretion in these matters, I should have thought that a single body, whether a Ministerial or advisory body, or something of that sort, was very much better to deal with this kind of matter than an individual local authority which might have half a playing field, as one hon. Member has just suggested.
  Those are the main points in the Bill. The only Clause to which no one has objected is that dealing with police. For a change they have to pay rates in cases where they have not paid rates before and we can take it that that will meet with general approval. In conclusion, I would only say that the Minister's reason, given in answer to a Written Question on 6th December, for taking the action he proposes to take for getting on with the matter at all—he was talking about a postponement of revaluation—was:
  "If fresh changes in the basis of valuation were now to be made, it would inevitably involve further delay. This would have the effect of prolonging the countless anomalies which exist under the present system and the blatant injustices which they cause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1954; Vol. 521, c. 20.]
  "Blatant injustices" are the right hon. Gentleman's own words. If, as I think is the case, there are perhaps not blatant injustices, but countless anomalies, this Measure is, on the one hand, insufficient

  1291
  and on the other unnecessary. It is insufficient in the few small things with which it tries to deal and unnecessary in removing provisions which would give the ratepayers some further safeguard against the injustices.
  9.25 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I say straight away that this Bill certainly does not inspire me any more than it inspires most hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. When I came to my present office I found the Bill already on the stocks. I can be quite frank with the House. My first inclination was to see whether I could put it quietly away. I looked at it very carefully and I came to the conclusion very reluctantly that there was nothing for it, that not only was it desirable but, in many respects, it was absolutely essential to make the existing legislation workable, and that if we shirked this further Measure to tie up the loose ends we should be in the most fearful difficulties when we introduced the new valuations.
  The Acts of 1948 and 1953 left, as was inevitable, a lot of loose ends and a certain number of problems which had not been covered. For instance, they did not deal with the changed situation resulting from the nationalisation of the gas industry, although other nationalised industries, electricity and transport, were dealt with. They did not deal with the problem of preserving the position of charitable organisations. They did not deal with other interests, for example, the special position of the churches, the railway advertising stations and, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) mentioned—an uncontroversial aspect—the police, which nonetheless needed to be looked after.
  All these points needed to be cleared up in one way or another. That is what we are trying to do in the Bill. It is a mopping-up process of all the odds and ends left over from the two previous Acts. I will not suggest that everything in the Bill is absolutely essential; what I claim is that quite a number of its provisions are absolutely essential. As hon. Members know, when we find ourselves committed to a Bill we usually take the opportunity to introduce a certain num-
  1292
  ber of other matters for which we should otherwise be unable to legislate, and usually one or two Scottish aspects are introduced here and there to complete the picture.
  The point which I think has attracted most attention during the debate is the proposal for the change in the procedure for appeals, the draft valuation lists and everything connected with them. I will not claim that that is an absolutely essential change. I do not think it is, but I am sure that it is exceedingly desirable and that it will make the whole difference to the smooth running of the machine.
  I was especially grateful to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) for the generous way in which he acknowledged the fact, which I believe to be very true, that the change which is being made in the publication of valuation lists and the abolition of the draft valuation lists is something which is desirable to prevent—to use his words—the choking of the administrative machine. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering did not follow the line taken on behalf of his party in the opening speech from the opposite side of the House, but we know that a certain latitude is permitted among Members of the party opposite. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not get into trouble as a result.
  A good deal has been said about the position of shopkeepers. The hon. Member for Wellingborough—unlike the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) who claimed that it was this Bill—said that the 1953 Act had altered the basis of valuation of houses to the detriment of the occupiers of shops and commercial premises.
  Mr. Lindgren: I said that the 1953 Act altered the basis of the 1948 Act for domestic properties, but left shop premises as they were under the 1948 Act.
  Mr. Sandys: As I believe one hon. Member opposite said, it did its best to make the 1948 Act workable. In general terms it did not alter the basis of the 1948 Act. In the 1948 Act there was a dual arrangement for the valuation of houses according to whether they were built before or after 1919. There was one provision which, I think, was based on construction costs in 1938 or something like that. It proved to be totally unworkable.

  1293
  That had to be altered, but by and large the purpose of the 1953 Act, so far as it was concerned with this problem, was merely to tidy up and make workable the principles established in the 1948 Act.
  I hope therefore that no one will try to saddle this side of the House with any of the consequences of the principles then laid down. We all recognise the difficulties of putting houses on a current cost basis at a time when there was an acute housing shortage, but from the speeches we have heard today I think there is general recognition that the sooner we can get all these things on a current basis the better.
  Reference has been made to my relations with the National Chamber of Trade over the draft lists and whether I did or did not mislead that body, and also to the circulars that have been published. So much has been said about it that I should like to explain the position. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering referred to a circular, issued by the National Chamber of Trade. In my view, it is a very fair and reasonable statement but I would point out that the statement of what I said to the Chamber of Trade is the enclosure to this document printed on the same sheet, which is a reproduction of what I said here in the House. There is therefore no suggestion that there are two versions of what I said; that I said to the Chamber of Trade something different from what I said in the House. It has circularised its members with copies of the statement I made in the
  House.
  Mr. Sparks: We already knew that.
  Mr. Sandys: There has been a suggestion that I made a statement to the National Chamber of Trade which did not conform to the statement I made in the House, and on which it is alleged that I had in some way gone back.
  The paragraph read by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering was from the circular. This is the circular of the Chamber of Trade and is not what I said:
  "Our next move, therefore, will be to circulate to all affiliated organisations a form of questionnaire designed to make available to us, immediately the Valuation Lists are published"—
  Those are the words to which the hon. and learned Member drew attention:
  "full details of present and future valuations …"
  1294
  That is a statement by the National Chamber of Trade to its organisations of its own intention and how it proposed to proceed. Incidentally, I would say that it does not mention draft valuation lists at all. I did not mention them myself, and it is therefore a little unfortunate that its later circular dated 19th March said:
  "In our discussions with the Minister following our National Rating Protest Week in November last"—
  That is the conversation which was recorded in the earlier circular:
  "we were told by Mr. Sandys himself that, after the publication of the draft valuation lists, if the results confirmed our fears that an unjust burden had been placed on the shopkeeper …"
  and so on.
  There was no mention even by them of draft valuation lists on the first occasion. Now they suggest that I gave some assurance about what would be done in relation to draft valuation lists. I am not making a complaint, because I am sure that there has been a perfectly genuine misunderstanding. What I do not understand is how this matter has arisen. The misunderstanding seems to be based upon an assumption which, considering the knowledge and experience of the National Chamber of Trade, I find it difficult to understand.
  After all, the valuation lists, according to the previous procedure, would appear towards the end of October. There would be a period of 25 days in which objections could be lodged and the matter examined, which would bring one well into the middle of November. The lists would then have to be delivered to the local authorities by the end of December. To suggest that during that time we should not only decide whether there had been some grave injustice but also introduce the necessary legislation, and that the Inland Revenue would get down to work again and revise the valuation lists and then deliver them by 1st January, is quite outside the realms of possibility, as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will, I am sure, agree.
  That is how the misunderstanding seems to have arisen. There never was in my mind the thought that it was conceivable between now and the date when the first valuation lists come into effect on 1st April, that it would be possible first to ascertain what the full effects of

  1295
  the new valuations were, secondly to decide whether there was any serious injustice, thirdly to draft a Bill and get it through all its stages in this House, then for the Inland Revenue to revise all of the lists, and then for the local authorities to get out all their rate demands in time for them to come into operation on 1st April. It is obviously inconceivable and quite impossible.
  Therefore, it never entered into my mind that the National Chamber of Trade were under the impression that any change of this kind, with all the necessary legislation involved, could possibly be carried through between the date of publication of the draft lists, and the coming into effect on 1st April.
  Mr. Mitchison: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that neither I nor anybody else in the House fails to accept his assurance that draft valuation lists were not mentioned? The point is that these people were going to act immediately the draft valuation lists appeared. They may have been right or they may have been wrong, but if it was the Government's intention to remove draft valuation lists, ought they not to have told them about it?
  Mr. Sandys: It is a very well-established practice not to divulge to people outside the intentions of the Government with regard to legislation. It is not like local authorities with whom one has rather a special relationship. I think there would have been a fearful outcry, possibly even from the hon. and learned Gentleman, if anything like that had happened. He would have said that the Tories were getting together with their friends and concocting some fearful plot. I would have been too frightened to do that. In point of fact, if it had occurred to me I should perhaps have tried to say something which would prevent them from drawing any precise conclusions, but it certainly did not enter my head that they were assuming that.
  Mr. Sparks: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he proposes to make good his promise? That is the important point.
  Mr. Sandys: Let me go back to my promise. This is what I said in my statement:
  1296
  "As I have explained, there are many uncertain factors in the situation; and consequently, we cannot yet be sure how the new basis of assessment will work out in practice. I can, however, give an assurance that, as soon as the effects of the forthcoming revaluation can be fully measured the Government will review the position and will consider whether any changes are necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 21.]
  I gladly confirm that undertaking. That is what we will do, and we will waste no time in beginning to try to form an opinion about these things. But it is quite impossible to make changes, if changes prove to be necessary, between now and when the first valuation lists come into force.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in a speech which drew well-deserved praise from the other side of the House, pointed out that the abolition of the draft lists does not deprive the ratepayer of any rights which he enjoys today. My hon. Friend said that the ratepayer is in fact better off than he is at the moment for the simple reason that, by synchronising the publication of the valuation lists with the fixing of the rate poundage by the local authority, we save the ratepayer a great deal of worry and possibly of expense. That expense might prove to be quite needless when he sees the two figures side by side.
  The hon. Member for Clapham and, in a less direct way, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, suggested that there was a connection between Clause 1 and the date of the next General Election. I would remind the House that my predecessor, the present Minister of Defence, referred to the necessity for this Bill, and in particular for an alteration in the procedure for appeal, over a year ago. All I can say is that if my right hon. Friend could predict with certainty the date of the next General Election 18 months in advance, he is a very fine political prophet.
  Mr. Blackburn: Was it 18 months in advance?
  Mr. Sandys: Yes, because the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Clapham was that the introduction of the Bill would prevent the publication—
  Mr. Blackburn: I am only trying to get the date of the Election.
  Mr. Sandys: I pointed out that this was a date which had been assumed by

  1297
  the hon. Member for Clapham and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. I am not as well informed as they are.
  The necessity for the change, as already explained by the hon. Member for Wellingborough, is to prevent the choking of the machine. In amplification of that, I would draw attention to the fact that there have been two previous national revaluations—1929 and 1934—and in each case, but particularly in 1929, the number of objections was very great indeed. At that time the objections had to be lodged in October, at a time when the ratepayers did not know what was going to be the rate poundage six months later and did not know that there was to be—as it turned out—a very large reduction in the rate poundage, which to a very large extent offset the increase in the assessments. There is very little doubt that if they had known a very large number of those objections would not have been lodged.
  The result of that flood of objections was that the administrative machine in many areas was very seriously overloaded. I find from the records it is said that an exceedingly heavy strain was placed on the staff. The Minister of Health at that time had to authorise special allowances for meals for staff and members of the committees working on the matter in order that they could work extra hours. That all emphasises the fact that there was very serious strain on the machine.
  How much greater it would have been on this occasion when there has not been a revaluation for 20 years. There is no doubt that assessments in the majority of cases are going up very considerably. Equally, there is very little doubt that rate poundages are going down very considerably. I am not going into the question of how much, because I do not know, but obviously there is going to be a very big counter-balancing factor on either side. If we did not make this change a phenomenally large proportion of ratepayers, as a precaution, would put in objections which would completely choke the machine, with the result that the draft valuation lists—the only purpose of which is to save time—would cause a great deal of needless delay.
  Mr. Mitchison: Enlarge the machine.
  Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) said there was a discrepancy between the treatment accorded to the rating authority and the ratepayer, that is to say, the rating authority would be told about the new lists in January, whereas the ratepayer would only hear about them in April. My hon. Friend suggested that in order to rectify this the rating authority might be given a global figure. That is attractive, but it overlooks the fact that the local authority receives this information not just for its own gratification and information but in order that it may begin to get down to the business of writing out the rating demands and addressing them, which is a considerable job that takes a number of weeks. That is why it has always been reckoned that they should get the information in the early part of January at the latest.
  My hon. Friend also referred to water undertakings and the question of sinking funds. Previously the deduction of sinking fund provisions sufficient to replace the asset has been allowed. That worked quite all right so long as the cost of building was reasonably stable, but, with the soaring building costs since the war, that arrangement has come to make complete nonsense. This is the sort of thing that has been happening—I will not mention the names of authorities—one undertaking proposed a reduction in its assessment from £185,000 to £110,000, another from £340,000 to £227,000, a third from £1,400,000 to £1,200,000.
  If that arrangement were allowed to continue, whilst the rest of the assessments went up, the water undertakings' assessments would be going down. Clearly, in some way or other a new arrangement has to be made. The Bill does offer a fair and reasonable alternative. Instead of having sinking funds, which are notional sinking funds—the money is never in fact put into a sinking fund—the allowances will be made for actual expenditure on maintenance and renewals averaged over a period of years to give reasonable stability. The question of what the period should be is still left open and can be agreed with the undertakings concerned.
  I come now to the question of charities and playing fields.
  Mr. Skeffington: May I ask the Minister a question?
  Mr. Sandys: I am sorry, I must go on. That issue was raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), the hon. Member for Wellingborough and my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West and for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), who has the Lords Cricket Ground in his constituency. Almost all those hon. Members objected to the complete discretion which the Bill gives to local authorities in regard to the exemption of charities from rates. Particular attention was drawn to the possibility of anomalies between different areas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East said that in his constituency there was a football field, one half of which was in one area and the other half in another local authority area. He said that this would be inconsistent with the principle of central valuation. Of course, it is inconsistent with that principle, but it is an awkward problem to deal with. These charities have in the past been dealt with on a local basis, on the basis of local knowledge, and I do not quite see how the Inland Revenue could tackle the job without making fearful mistakes.
  What we have been trying to do is to preserve the existing position. Of course, the existing position is full of anomalies all over the place. Whether it is right to find some other system, I do not know, but we have consulted the local authorities and we have consulted the National Council of Social Service, which represents a large section of the charitable organisations. I am not at all enthusiastic about this complete discretion which is being given, but frankly I do not see how we can operate it centrally.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough asked that some general rules should be established. I should be happy to consider any general rules which the hon. Member would like to suggest, but unless he has got down to the drafting of them I can tell him in advance that he would find it very difficult. If he has any ideas we would be glad to consider them, because I share very much the sentiments which have been expressed in this connection.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East, who has knowledge and experience of this question, made a
  1300
  powerful plea for more favourable treatment for charities and also for sports grounds and playing fields. I assure him that we will give most careful attention to any reasonable proposals which he or the organisations concerned care to bring forward during the Committee stage.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough spoke about church halls and said that he thought the arrangements which were proposed in the Bill would cause friction with the churches, particularly in regard with the letting revenue from church halls. I do not know about that. The scheme has been worked out with the Churches through the Churches' Main Committee. Perhaps the best way is to try out the scheme, and I think that it ought to work.
  Next I come to the question of nationalised undertakings. The hon. Member for Wellingborough asked why they should be sheltered, and he said that the County Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association did not like the scheme for gas boards. All I can say is that the scheme has been agreed with the local authority associations and with the gas boards and I have not found any difficulty. There was an earlier proposal by the local authority associations for some quinquennial arrangement. It was dropped later, however, and as far as I know the present proposal is an agreed one.
  Transport and electricity are covered by the pool payments scheme. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary announced today, these arrangements will be reviewed in the financial year 1956–57.
  That review will obviously cover the question whether it is feasible to adopt current values as the basis. So far as gas is concerned, when the time comes for the review we can see whether gas should also be included in the review. That, I think, will meet many of the objections which have been made during the debate.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough asked why invalid chairs were being exempted. He asked whether it was because they were owned by the Crown, or whether it was to help the invalids. The answer is that it is to help the invalids. We do not feel it is a good thing to give with one hand and to take away with the other. I realise that there are chalets for tuberculous patients and blind persons and others, and I think that I

  1301
  shall meet the case by giving an assurance that we will in Committee consider the possibility of extending this arrangement to cover those other cases.
  The hon. Member for Clapham said the Bill would bring in a new valuation which would affect the product of ld. rate and that the education grants would be adversely affected. I interrupted him to make the matter clear, but evidently I did not bring it home to him. This Bill does not alter the basis of valuation except in regard—
  Mr. Gibson: I did not say that it did.
  Mr. Sandys: I assumed that the hon. Member was talking about this Bill and not the Act of 1948, but it seems he must have been addressing himself to that. This Bill does not alter the basis of valuation except in regard to gas and some other minor points. If there should be any injustice or anomalies in the existing basis of valuation, the blame rests fairly and squarely with the 1948 Act.
  Those are the points I have time to deal with. I have dealt with the more important ones which have been raised in the debate. There are no doubt others which will be raised in Committee. This is a Bill which contains many complicated and detailed provisions on which the main work will have to be done in Committee. If we have the same objective approach and co-operation in Committee as we have had from all parts of the House in the debate today, I have no doubt that we shall between us make this an even better Bill than it is at present. I am very glad to know that hon. Members are not going to oppose the Bill and that we may all look forward to working together upon it at its future stages.
  Mr. Pannell: How long have we got?
  Mr. Skeffington: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question of the compounding arrangements? It is no use saying, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, that these ratepayers are in a better position than they used to be, because a good
  1302
  many people will now receive rate demands who have never had them before. Surely that is a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman should give some consideration?
  Mr. Sandys: I dealt with as many of the matters discussed as I could in the time available to me, and I cannot in the minute and a half left deal with that matter, but no doubt the hon. Member will have an opportunity of raising it again in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  RATING AND VALUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law as respects rating and valuation for rating, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954;

  (b) any increase, attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to property occupied for the purposes of a police force, in the sums payable out of such moneys under section three of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1950, or under section ten of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1946;

  (c) any increase, attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to Gas Boards, in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other enactment.—[Mr. Sandys.]

  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  BRITISH MUSEUM BILL
  Considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: On behalf of the Trustees of the British Museum I desire to express to the House very sincere thanks for the expedition with which the Bill has been considered, and to thank the House for the opportunity which the Bill gives to the Trustees more fully to discharge their duties under the Trust.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): On behalf of the Government, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has just said in the name of the Trustees. We, too, are glad that the Bill has got through so smoothly. I think it would be proper to mention that this is the third museum or gallery Bill which the House has passed in the space of six months and that we can all take credit for that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  BANKSIDE POWER STATION (ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. George Isaacs: I feel that I should apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for keeping him here this evening after a long and tiring day on the Front Bench opposite. I keep him here because I must draw attention to the insufferable nuisance imposed upon people in my constituency who live in the area where the Bankside Power Station is located.
  When the old power station was partly demolished, and we learned that a modern station was to be erected, we had mixed feelings about it because Southwark Borough Council and London County Council had set aside a little
  1304
  stretch of river bank, on which were buildings demolished as a result of the war, to establish a riverside pleasure garden. It should be remembered that Southwark has no park or open space except for the piece of grass round the War Museum and that we were looking forward to using that site. Our disappointment was lessened by the fact that the new power station would at least do away with the nuisance caused by the old station, from which we had suffered for many years.
  It is a pity that it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government who is to reply to the debate, because the man I want to get at is the Minister of Fuel and Power. I think he must have some right and authority in this matter and some control over the body which is running this plant. There have been complaints for a long time about the nuisance caused by the insufferable amount of grit emitted from the power station. When the new station was contemplated a great deal of fuss was made about the possibility of the smoke from the power station damaging St. Paul's Cathedral. Far more fuss was made about that than anything I heard mentioned about possible damage to the health, comfort and temper of those who lived in the immediate vicinity of the power station itself.
  I want to quote a few figures to the Parliamentary Secretary, although I do not expect to have from him tonight an undertaking other than that he will look into this matter and see what the Government can do. In September, 1950, while the old plant was in full operation, the deposit from the station was measured by means of one instrument placed immediately alongside the station and another instrument located at the Town Hall in Walworth Road, a mile away. We found that the deposit recorded at that time was the equivalent to 235 tons to the square mile on Bankside and a mile away in Walworth Road the deposit was 60 tons to the square mile. That was the highest recorded. In 1951 it dropped to 172 tons, and in 1952 it rose to 192 tons.
  We made investigations about it. When I say "we" I mean the local authority made the investigation through its medical officer of health, its sanitary inspectors, and so on. They went into

  1305
  the matter very carefully. Our inspector reported that the deposit
  "was so bad that it can be classified as one of the black spots in the Kingdom."
  He went on to say that the deposits were
  "in excess of those of nearly all the industrial centres in the country."
  He is speaking of a piece of land right in the heart of London, opposite St. Paul's Cathedral, and it is a bit unreasonable to think that not only the residents there but the business houses should have to put up with this nuisance. Residents have complained, business firms have complained about it. Sometimes, in the summer, all windows have to be kept closed, because if the residents try to get fresh air all they get is a fresh dose of grit.
  We find some ups and downs in the amount of deposit. For example, in February, 1953, the deposit from the Bankside station was equal to 268 tons to the square mile. But in July of that year it went down to 62 tons and it has gone up and down in various ways since. Strangely enough, in July, 1954, the deposit was much higher than it was in October or December. We are anxious to know what are the reasons for it. We know that less coal is being burned, fewer boilers are being fired and that there is practically no operation in the summer months by this plant except in an emergency. Why, then, do we get 77 tons in July? I think I may be able to give one of the reasons later.
  The dirt that is noticeable when people are walking in this area when the grit is falling is actually felt under the feet, as if they were walking on sand. If it can be felt under the feet, one can imagine what it will be like in the atmosphere and in people's houses. I believe that the station staff have made every effort that they can within their power to put it right, but I do not think the British Electricity Authority has done as much as it might.
  We referred the matter to the Research Station, at East Greenwich. Again, when I use the word "we" I mean the local authority, of which I was a member for so many years that I still think of myself as a member. The report given to the borough council was dated March, 1952, and, among other things, it said:
  "It is stated that each dust extractor fitted would cost £10,000 and, in addition to this,
  1306
  there would be the cost of the fan and motor replacements and the modification of the rest of the boilers."
  But the Research Station goes on to say:
  "An appreciable reduction in grit could be obtained by installing a less efficient dust extractor at a cost estimated by the B.E.A. at £1,000 per boiler."
  The station has only four or five boilers in use, so that it will not cost a lot of money. Indeed, it is costing more in the nuisance and trouble being caused in the area. One suggestion was that the Authority could extend the oil-firing system to the boilers in the old station. There is a pipeline there and it would not take much to run it from the new station to the old station and burn oil instead of coal.
  We took the matter a little further. We raised it with the Authority direct, and I have here one or two examples of its letters. On 6th December, 1950, the Divisional Controller wrote to our Town Clerk:
  "We have good grounds for believing that each succeeding year from now on will see some lessening of the use of the old boilers, and after 1954 it seems likely that their use would be able to be restricted to relatively very few hours per year."
  We understood that when the new station went up, the old one would disappear, but half the new one went up and the old one was left. It is a cockeyed system of economy to go on using the old plant.
  There was some hope of a reduction of the nuisance in 1951. We had a second letter dated 2nd January, 1951, from the same Divisional Controller, who wrote to our Town Clerk:
  "I am further assured by senior responsible officials that the present grit eliminating efficiency is as high as when first installed. I am glad to add that I find no reason to query these observations."
  What efficiency? Is dropping 250 tons of grit on us efficiency? And if it is as high now as when first installed, Southwark has something to be grateful for in that this machinery has not deteriorated but has remained as efficient as when it was put in 50 years ago. That is not approaching this matter in the spirit in which such an authority should treat reasonable complaints made by a local authority.
  I shall now quote from a further letter to our Town Clerk, sent this time by the

  1307
  Generating Engineer on 21st November, 1952:
  "It is difficult to understand why the deposited matter in the Bankside area has increased between 1951 and 1952, as this indicates that the deposited matter does not have any relation to the running of the Generating Station which, in 1952, burned only two-thirds of the coal used during the corresponding period in 1951."
  In other words, "Please, Sir, it ain't me; it's the other bloke." There is no other large chimney there but that of Barclay's Brewery, and that has been checked. It is true that there are one or two other large chimneys in a more remote part of the district, but they have been checked and there have been no complaints by the fuel overseers or the sanitary authorities. Yet we are told that it must be somebody else.
  Then the authority put forward this—there may be something in it, too:
  "The wind was in the direction of your sampling apparatus for 20 per cent. of the period during 1952 as against 45 per cent. for the 1951 period."
  That puts me in mind of the picture "Gone with the Wind." It is true that when the wind is in the east it blows past our recording instrument, but somebody else is getting it. It is coming down because what goes up must come down. The letter continues:
  "… it is not possible to form any conclusions that the Generating Station has been responsible for grit deposits to the extent mentioned in your report, and I regret that I am not able to give observations on the probable reasons for the increase."
  Well, it is up to the Authority. Its chimneys are responsible; its coal is making the grit. It may be someone else's wind that is blowing it in the wrong direction, but we are still getting the grit.
  I then took up the matter with the Ministry and I received a courteous letter saying that it was giving the matter its consideration. This is an interesting sentence:
  "Moreover, the tops of the chimneys are below the level of the buildings of the new ("B") station—"
  I use the "(B)" as it is used in the letter—in parenthesis and not in the sense in which it is used in my constituency—
  "and the adjoining B.E.A. offices … and it seems likely that they cause down draughts which have tended to hinder the dispersion of waste glass from the chimneys."
  1308
  What an upside down way of putting it, that the chimneys are lower than the top of the new station. The old ones were there first. Surely the B.E.A. recognise that, if it is resting upon this statement, it is an admission that the building of the new station above the level of the chimneys of the old station has caused the trouble from which we are suffering.
  There is then the statement that to make a practical remedy would be expensive, so expensive that it would be unreasonable to commence it. The letter ends by saying:
  "I am afraid that real relief from this annoying emission will only come when the full plant of the station is built."
  We are asking the Minister of Housing and Local Government to hurry his colleague the Minister of Fuel and Power about completing the building of the new station.
  This is not the only thing about it which is detrimental to our locality. The Authority has built its big station there and left us practically nothing for our little garden promenade, which is close to the site of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre. Bankside is a historic part of Southwark, and Southwark is an even more historic spot than the City of London. The power station has been put there, and behind it there is a huge block of offices, and this is on a site where we hoped to build homes for our people. However, the Authority has possession of it and it seems to want to hang on to it.
  There is one more letter to which I want to refer, and then I will not worry the Parliamentary Secretary any further. This is a letter to me from the former Minister, and it is dated 31st March, 1954. It says that the coal consumption is less than half what it was four years ago. I admit that the amount of grit dropped is only a little more than half what it was; we are not getting so much, but we are still getting too much.
  The final sentence reads:
  "During next July and August the station will be closed down completely, and only brought into use in an emergency."
  It was not closed in July and August. In July, it dropped 77 tons on Bankside and, in August, 22 tons. Although the station was said to be out of use, the grit still dropped. Perhaps that is the reason for the case that it was not the

  1309
  Authority's power station which caused the trouble; but the station was in use.
  In one part of the correspondence there is reference to the needs of the country for electricity, and it says that half of the old obsolete Bankside station, burning huge quantities of coal, must be kept in operation because the country needs electricity. Some of the people in other parts of the country who need the electricity should come forward and have a bit of the grit as well.
  One must be in that area to appreciate what it is like. Our people have grit in their eyes and grit in their food; there is grit underfoot and grit in the laundry on washing day. I know that what I say has happened. There are the large blocks of the Peabody Buildings less than 150 yards from the station. The only place there for women to dry their laundry is on the roof. They put their laundry on the roof, and the grit comes down. Father comes home to tea, and mother goes upstairs to take in the washing, and when she comes down father knows all about it because she is not in a good humour if she finds that she has to do her laundry all over again. I can say with some justification that this is a nuisance not only physically but in the way it upsets amenities and family life in the area.
  The Authority says something about the economic cost of effecting an improvement; but economy is a question not only of money but of comfort, health and reasonable conditions of living. I appreciate that it is not the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, represented here tonight, which is responsible, but I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the Ministry of Fuel and Power to look into the matter and ask the British Electricity Authority to hurry on the only thing which can stop the grit falling, which is to remove the cause. I want the Authority to get on with its plans to clear the area so that we can proceed with our improvements and give our people relief from the nuisance from which they are now suffering.
  10.20 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I should like to begin by apologising to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark
  1310
  (Mr. Isaacs) for the fact that I was not available on a previous occasion because I was indisposed, and to add that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power would be with me this evening—he had every intention of being present—had he not been indisposed. I should convey that to the right hon. Gentleman. He has raised a subject of great concern to his constituents and of great interest to a number of city workers, and I will try to meet most of the points he has raised.
  Two stations are involved—station "A," the old station, and what the right hon. Gentleman calls station "B," the new one. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has any complaint about the new one.
  Mr. Isaacs: None at all.
  Mr. Deedes: It is therefore not necessary for me to make any defence about that. His complaint is that Bankside "A" station is the mischief. The station is completely out of date and is nearly at the end of its life. It is anticipated that in five or seven years, if it is not dismantled, it will be used only for emergencies. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman would like to see it closed tomorrow.
  Mr. Isaacs: They told us 1954.
  Mr. Deedes: But there is the difficulty that it still provides electricity which we are told is indispensable and it is used to meet peak loads during the day. It is not operated during the night. It is being used less and less, as the figures show. In 1950 it consumed 109,200 tons of coal and 15,300 tons of oil. In 1953 those figures were 50,200 tons of coal and 6,600 tons of oil, and in 1954 they were 36,900 tons of coal and 7,000 tons of oil. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a progressive reduction. In other words, it is a third of the coal consumption and 50 per cent. of the oil consumption of 1950. Failing complete cessation, such diminishment of activity is probably the next best thing.
  I admit that the equipment for the purpose we are discussing is inadequate. Of the 18 boilers which the "A" station runs, only two are provided with grit arresters. The difficulty here is that the British Electricity Authority is reluctant to carry out expensive re-equipment of a

  1311
  plant with a very limited life. Let me say something about the serious problem of the different kind of emissions from the power station's chimneys, and let me stress the fact that my information is based on the report of the Chief Alkali Inspector. At the end of last month my right hon. Friend undertook to the right hon. Gentleman that such an inspection should be made and it was made at the end of last month, and what I have to say is largely based on what the Chief Inspector found.
  I want first to deal with the question of soot. Boilers, both oil and coal fires, are likely to produce dark smoke for two or three minutes when being brought on load. That will not come as a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman. Thereafter, there should seldom be dark smoke. An observer is on duty to report the discharge of smoke to a boilerhouse foreman to record the occurrence and duration in a special log book, and that was found to be in order.
  Mr. Isaacs: There is no complaint about smoke.
  Mr. Deedes: The records have been checked. The Chief Inspector did notice two other chimneys in the vicinity producing dark smoke for extended periods.
  The next question was that of sulphur dioxide. Assuming that 90 per cent. of the sulphur in the coal and 100 per cent. in the oil is discharged as sulphur dioxide, the tonnages discharged in the last five years are: for 1950, 3,140 tons, in 1952, 2,040 and last year, 1,100, that is about one-third of the 1950 total. So the emission of sulphur dioxide has been substantially reduced.
  I admit that this is apparently in conflict with the readings of Southwark Borough's gauges, which showed an increase of about 30 per cent. in 1954 over 1953. One deduction is that some of the sulphur dioxide must come from other sources. Perhaps I might take up the right hon. Gentleman's point about the closing of the station in July and August, 1954. In fact, Bankside station" A" was closed down then and the lead peroxide instrument at Greenmore Wharf, one of the places where a gauge is kept, showed an appreciable amount of sulphur dioxide in the period. It is very difficult to check the sources of the emissions.
  1312
  Thirdly, I come to the question of grit. It is the opinion of the Chief Alkali Inspector that the station is mainly responsible for grit deposits. I should add that there is an element of doubt created by the positioning of the gauge at Greenmore Wharf. This gauge cannot be regarded as affording an indication of the average level of grit deposited in the area, much less the borough of Southwark, because—and the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned this point—winds from the south and the west tend to bring waste gases from "A" station rapidly down to ground level. This may account for exceptionally high readings. Two gauges placed even quite close to each other will very often give widely different readings. To assume that readings may indicate an actual fall in tons on a square mile can, of course, be fallacious.
  I have gone into the question of emission. We accept the opinion of the Chief Alkali Inspector that the position is unsatisfactory. However much one may argue about the instrument, that remains a fact. We accept it. We have discussed again the outlook for this older station with the British Electricity Authority. The occasion of this inspection was taken as another opportunity for raising the matter. I do not want to say that the last word has yet been said on that subject, but obviously, without my hon. Friend being here, I can only give solid assurances on the short-term course which is open to the Authority.
  The right hon. Gentleman has shown his awareness of the fact that my right hon. Friend is not responsible directly for this or any other power station. In the short term, all we can seek is to keep pressing for close control of smoke and for yet a further reduction in the use of solid fuel. I hope that the occasion which the right hon. Gentleman has chosen for discussion of this subject will have its bearing—directly or indirectly—upon the attainment of this short-term objective.
  Mr. Isaacs: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that little ray of hope, and for staying here tonight to help us in this matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

CIVIL AVIATION
  Heston Airport (Sale)
  Heston Airport (Sale)
  Helicopter Services
  Helicopter Services
  Radiation Filters
  Radiation Filters
  Municipal Airports
  Municipal Airports
ROADS
  "No Parking" Sign, Park Lane
  "No Parking" Sign, Park Lane
  New Road, Dagenham (Traffic Conditions)
  New Road, Dagenham (Traffic Conditions)
  Maintenance and Improvements (Supplementary Allocations)
  Maintenance and Improvements (Supplementary Allocations)
  Junction, Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Accidents)
  Junction, Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Accidents)
  Traffic Census
  Traffic Census
  Roundabouts, London (Land Costs and Easements)
  Roundabouts, London (Land Costs and Easements)
  Class A Roads (Accidents)
  Class A Roads (Accidents)
SHIPPING (PANAMA AND LIBERIA REGISTRATIONS)
  SHIPPING (PANAMA AND LIBERIA REGISTRATIONS)
  SHIPPING (PANAMA AND LIBERIA REGISTRATIONS)
CIVIL AIR ATTACHES
  CIVIL AIR ATTACHES
  CIVIL AIR ATTACHES
KENYA
  United Kingdom Residents (National Service)
  United Kingdom Residents (National Service)
  Arrested Africans (Detentions and Releases)
  Arrested Africans (Detentions and Releases)
SOMALILAND
  Haud and Reserved Areas (Expenditure)
  Haud and Reserved Areas (Expenditure)
  Cultivated Land
  Cultivated Land
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Constitutional Development (Report)
  Constitutional Development (Report)
  Coloured Persons, United Kingdom (Welfare)
  Coloured Persons, United Kingdom (Welfare)
WEST INDIES
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Production)
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Production)
  Jamaica (Coconut Industry)
  Jamaica (Coconut Industry)
  Citrus Industry (Mission's Report)
  Citrus Industry (Mission's Report)
CYPRUS (INCIDENTS)
  CYPRUS (INCIDENTS)
  CYPRUS (INCIDENTS)
NORTHERN RHODESIA (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS)
SIERRA LEONE (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY)
  SIERRA LEONE (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY)
  SIERRA LEONE (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY)
ROYAL NAVY
  Ordnance Inspection Department
  Ordnance Inspection Department
  Dockyard Workers, Malta
  Dockyard Workers, Malta
  Appropriation Account (Vote 2)
  Appropriation Account (Vote 2)
  Naval Discipline Act (Select Committee)
  Naval Discipline Act (Select Committee)
SHIPBUILDING (ORDERS)
  SHIPBUILDING (ORDERS)
  SHIPBUILDING (ORDERS)
ROYAL AIR FORCE (NUCLEAR RADIATION)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (NUCLEAR RADIATION)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (NUCLEAR RADIATION)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Caravan Dwellings (Omnibus Bodies)
  Caravan Dwellings (Omnibus Bodies)
  Water Supplies (Fluoride Content)
  Water Supplies (Fluoride Content)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Undistributed Profits
  Undistributed Profits
  Capital Issues Committee (Order)
  Capital Issues Committee (Order)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
TURCO-IRAQI PACT (COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATION)
  TURCO-IRAQI PACT (COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATION)
  TURCO-IRAQI PACT (COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATION)
AGRICULTURE
  Soil Research, Romney Marsh (Trace Elements)
  Soil Research, Romney Marsh (Trace Elements)
  Potato Marketing (Draft Scheme)
  Potato Marketing (Draft Scheme)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Amateur Transmitters (Court Statement)
  Amateur Transmitters (Court Statement)
  Mobile Radio Services (Committee's Report)
  Mobile Radio Services (Committee's Report)
POST OFFICE (LONDON-PENRITH DELIVERIES)
  POST OFFICE (LONDON-PENRITH DELIVERIES)
  POST OFFICE (LONDON-PENRITH DELIVERIES)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Lincoln Exchange
  Lincoln Exchange
  Bartley Green, Birmingham
  Bartley Green, Birmingham
  Sale Area
  Sale Area
COURT PROCEEDINGS (POLICE COSTS)
  COURT PROCEEDINGS (POLICE COSTS)
  COURT PROCEEDINGS (POLICE COSTS)
SCOTLAND
  Houses, Cumnock (Complaints)
  Houses, Cumnock (Complaints)
  Duke Street Prison, Glasgow
  Duke Street Prison, Glasgow
  Clyde Valley Overspill (New Town)
  Clyde Valley Overspill (New Town)
  Spastic Paralysis and Cerebral Palsy
  Spastic Paralysis and Cerebral Palsy
BRITISH ARMY (HELICOPTERS)
  BRITISH ARMY (HELICOPTERS)
  BRITISH ARMY (HELICOPTERS)
BACON FACTORIES (GRADING)
  BACON FACTORIES (GRADING)
  BACON FACTORIES (GRADING)
RESEARCH (ATMOSPHERIC RADIOACTIVITY)
  RESEARCH (ATMOSPHERIC RADIOACTIVITY)
  RESEARCH (ATMOSPHERIC RADIOACTIVITY)
LOST WORKING DAYS (BRONCHITIS)
  LOST WORKING DAYS (BRONCHITIS)
  LOST WORKING DAYS (BRONCHITIS)
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 Address praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Food) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

  CYPRUS DISTURBANCES
  2.36 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can make a statement about recent violence in Cyprus, and how they propose to prevent its recurrence.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, in the early hours of last Friday, attacks were made simultaneously, with explosives, on a number of public buildings and installations in the principal towns in Cyprus. The most serious of these was an attack on the Cyprus Broadcasting Station, near Nicosia, when four masked men overpowered the night watchmen, and then exploded dynamite under the wall of the building, causing much damage and setting it on fire. At about the same time, a number of explosions causing minor damage occurred at the Government Secretariat offices, at the Education Department, and at the Wolseley Barracks in Nicosia; and in Larnaca and Limassol explosions occurred at police stations. An attempt
  320
  to dynamite an ordnance depôt at Famagusta was foiled by the guards, and an attempt to set fire to a petrol depôt at Dhekelia was similarly unsuccessful. Some damage was caused to an electric generator at the cantonment at Episkopi.
  On the four following nights, there were attacks by bombs or grenades on houses occupied by Service personnel in Nicosia and Limassol, and on a bus operated by a company which is under contract to Service Departments. Some damage was caused, and a police constable and the wife of an army officer were slightly injured.
  There has been no loss of life from these incidents, although the body of a man was found electrocuted near an electric power line in circumstances which suggest that he was attempting to sabotage the line. The damage to Cyprus Government property from the first night's incidents is estimated to be about £56,000, most of which was to the broadcasting equipment. Twenty-one arrests have been made; and a dump of sabotage material has been discovered by the police. Cyclostyled pamphlets by a body calling itself the National Organisation of Cyprus Struggle have been found at various places where incidents occurred, and other supplies of these pamphlets have been seized from suspected persons. A form of oath administered by this group to students has come into the possession of the police.
  Measures taken by the Cyprus Government include the provision of mobile police patrols in the towns at night, the mounting of military guards at a number of points, road and traffic checks by the police, the increased use of special constabulary, and the increase of protective staff at certain installations.
  I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in expressing the strongest condemnation of these wicked and malicious activities by a group of criminals who have attempted to disrupt in this way public order in Cyprus. It is indeed fortunate that no loss of life has occurred. The Turkish community of Cyprus has condemned these acts of violence; so too have Communist leaders. It is to be hoped that the Archbishop and other leaders of the Greek community in Cyprus will add their voices to those who condemn these acts, for I cannot but believe that the vast majority of people in Cyprus view them with detestation.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his detailed reply. I am sure we all share his confidence in the firm measures taken by the Administration against these inexcusable acts of violence. May I ask the noble Lord whether he does not agree that, so long as there is no constitutional outlet for Cypriot nationalism, the risk of violence and incitement to violence will continue and the situation may get worse? Will the Government, therefore, not make a fresh effort to secure the co-operation of Cypriots in the government of the island?
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the Government's policy in this matter was made clear as recently as February 2 last in your Lordships' House when I told your Lordships that the offer of a constitution was open to all men of good will in Cyprus. That offer still remains, and every effort is being made to persuade people to come forward and take it up.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, remembering the endeavours which this country made, out of our very slender resources, to assist Greece at a most critical time of the war, I hope the Government have conveyed to the Greek Government in no uncertain terms the deep feelings of the people of this country, who want to be on good terms with Greece, at the type and tone of the broadcasts which have been made from Greece to Cyprus.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, such representations have in fact been made, and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a piece of news which appeared in the Manchester Guardian (I have not as yet had an opportunity of checking its accuracy: this is the only paper available to us at the moment) in which the Greek Government, I think the day before yesterday, dismissed the Government official responsible for broadcasts to Cyprus. I hope that that information will be welcomed by your Lordships.

  TRIBUTES TO SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL
  2.43 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, since we met yesterday, an event has occurred to which I am sure your Lordships would agree that it is fitting, before we turn to the ordinary Business of the Day, that we who lead the various Parties in this House should make some reference. Yesterday, as your Lordships know, the Prime Minister, who so long has guided the fortunes of this country, decided to retire from the leadership of the Government, and placed his resignation in the hands of Her Majesty The Queen.
  The resignation of a Prime Minister is always a notable event in the political history of our country. Not that all those who have occupied that post have been of equal merit, or at least of equal importance. Prime Ministers, like other men, vary in their impact on their generation and on history. There have been some who, even in their lifetime, have hardly raised a ripple on the surface of politics and whose names now are forgotten by all but students of their period. There were others who will never pass from the minds of men, but will live in their hearts, so long as Britain endures. Into that illustrious company I am sure we shall agree that Sir Winston Churchill has already passed. It is not only those transcendent gifts—those gifts that have enabled him to excel in so many fields—that have won him his place; for, after all, others have had great gifts, and yet not one his fame.
  But he has, I believe, three great qualities, as rare as they are precious. The first is that indomitable courage which has enabled him to lift his country to his own level during the darkest days of the war; that lamp which shone then and still shines all the brighter, the deeper the gloom around. The second, I think, is an all-pervading humanity which informs and colours his judgment on all the issues that come before him. Third, and last, he has a passionate love of freedom and all that pertains to freedom, which makes him, I think, if I may say so, though the Leader of the Conservative Party, one of the greatest of Liberals, in the Fullest sense of the term. It is these three qualities, I am sure, that have given him the pre-eminent position which

  323
  he occupies to-day throughout the civilised world.
  We thank him to-day for all that, in fair weather and in foul, he has done for us and for our country. I am sure we shall all wish him many years, not of rest (for I am quite certain he never will rest) but of opportunities to explore yet new fields of human endeavour. May I hope, too—and I am sure that in saying this I speak for all your Lordships—that in his desire to explore these new fields, he will not entirely desert that which he has so long dominated; and that here in Parliament, in that other place where he has spent so many years of his great and active life, his wisdom and his courage will be still at the disposal of those who, so imperfectly, try to follow in his footsteps.
  Finally, before I sit down, I should like, if I may, to couple this, I am afraid, sadly inadequate tribute to the retiring Prime Minister with a word of warm welcome to the new Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, who succeeds him. If Sir Winston has left us, still at the peak of his career, Sir Anthony, I think, equally comes to us at the peak of his. Never, I believe, has my right honourable friend stood so high in the estimation of his fellow-countrymen. As your Lordships know, in his position as Foreign Secretary he has twice during the last year, by his own efforts, retrieved an apparently hopeless situation and plucked success from failure, first at Geneva, and secondly over the Paris Agreements. If we had to choose anyone to pilot us through the tides and the races, the rocks and the quicksands that lie ahead, I believe that everyone in every party would be happy to have him; and I am sure that everyone in this House, irrespective of his Party, will wish Sir Anthony all good fortune in guiding us through those looming perils into the calmer and more peaceful waters which I hope and believe lie beyond.
  2.49 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, this occasion, I believe, is quite without precedent. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House has just paid a moving tribute to the outgoing Prime Minister, and I, as Leader of the Opposition in this House, desire to support him. I can recall many cases in which a Prime Minister has left
  324
  office otherwise than as the result of an Election, and yet I doubt whether a tribute such as this has ever been moved from the Government side and supported from the Opposition side, even though the persons concerned were as eminent as, for example, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Salisbury or Mr. Asquith. Yet, if the Motion (if indeed there be a Motion) is without precedent, the man whom we honour is also without precedent. Indeed, the Motion fits the man and, in the case of Winston Churchill, nothing seems more natural than that we should for a moment forget our Party differences and bear witness to that underlying unity which, to the confusion of our critics and the consternation of our enemies, is demonstrated on an occasion such as this.
  My Lords, never was a man better matched with his hour than was Winston Churchill. I recall the fact with pride that, notwithstanding the sharp clash of Party differences, my Party were ready to serve under him and under no one else; and never was the nation's trust more amply justified. Historians in the future will analyse his strategy and point, I do not doubt, to his mistakes. But we who lived through those days and served under him have this advantage over the historians of the future: that we can testify to the inspiration we received from his splendid courage and his matchless eloquence. In the long line of statesmen who have graced our annals none has rendered such incomparable service, not only to his country but to the free world. None has striven so mightily in defence of truth and justice, and none has done more to uphold the standards of our national honour. I must confess that as a junior Minister I found him a most formidable figure. I loved to hear the lion roar, but I always thanked my stars that he never roared at me. He was a hard taskmaster, but he was tolerant and magnanimous—the sort of man who drew the best out of all his subordinates, each of whom was proud to serve him to the utmost of his capacity.
  Nor, I think, should we forget his gracious lady who, by her unremitting solicitude for him, gave him the happy background without which he could never have played the part for which destiny had surely reserved him. Long may he be with us to give us the

  325
  benefit of his experience and ripe judgment! We salute him.
  An epoch has ended, and we turn to the future. We can all join in extending our good wishes to his successor. All who know Sir Anthony Eden and have served with him have for him a high regard. May he long be endowed with good health and happiness! I think I can also add, without compromising myself unduly, the hope that his political reign over us may be glorious, though perhaps I had better not speculate on its length.
  2.53 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I desire to associate noble Lords on these Benches with the tributes which have been paid to the outgoing Prime Minister. I have one personal qualification, different from that of either of the previous speakers, that entitles me to do so, in that I am, after all, Sir Winston Churchill's earliest colleague. It will be fifty years in December that, after the announcement of the new Campbell-Bannerman Cabinet, there appeared in the Press the list of the Under-Secretaries. There, for the first time in a ministerial list, stood the name of Winston Churchill as Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and beside it my own as Under-Secretary for the Home Office. We served together in the Asquith Cabinet for five or six years, in the fateful times leading up to and passing through the critical year of 1914, which stands out in history as a turning point in the annals of the modern world. After two years as an Under-Secretary, Churchill, if I may so call him, entered the Cabinet, and since then at one time or another he has held the office of President of the Board of Trade, First Lord of the Admiralty, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for Home Affairs, for the Colonies, for the War Department, and for Air, Minister of Defence, and Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he has twice been Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury—all those twelve offices in the short space of fifty years!
  I would join with what has just been said by the noble and learned Earl, that at this moment we must not forget the great service that has been rendered by Lady Churchill. For forty-seven out of those fifty years Sir Winston has been sustained and aided by a happy marriage, and we, who are grateful to him for his
  326
  services, must be grateful to her also who has helped so much to make them possible.
  It is unfortunate at this juncture that the London daily Press is silenced. It is only a muted farewell that the nation can give to the outgoing Prime Minister, only a muted greeting to his incoming successor. This is only one of the inconveniences that the nation is suffering. We do not know what indirect results may come from the stoppage of all the customary notices that appear in the Press—financial, legal and personal. It calls to my mind the answer which was given by a schoolboy to a question in a history paper: "What was the effect of the papal interdict imposed upon England in the reign of King John?" The boy answered: "The effect of the interdict was that births, deaths and marriages were not allowed to take place." Our present trade union interdict does not go quite so far as that, but evidently it is leading in that direction.
  In Sir Anthony Eden we find one who has already served as Deputy Prime Minister since 1951. I do not know that he has had very much to do in that capacity: one might as well be a deputy volcano. But he has been designated for some time past as the successor, and he has now, by the desire of Her Gracious Majesty this morning, succeeded, without in any quarter doubt or controversy. He has been most closely associated with foreign questions for nearly the whole of his life. It is not generally remembered that at Oxford he specialised in Oriental languages, getting a First Class in the Honours school. That knowledge has always stood him in good stead in his dealings with Oriental affairs. Since 1926—nearly thirty years—with only short periods in Opposition, he has been directly connected with foreign affairs, and, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said, with ever-increasing success, so that he is indeed now at the height of his reputation.
  It is a good tradition in this country that the Foreign Secretary should not be expected to take a constant and active part in Party controversies, for by virtue of his office he speaks for the whole nation to the world, and he speaks, as a general rule, we are glad to think, with the universal support of all Parties in almost all matters. At any moment now

  327
  he may be plunged into the turmoil of political conflict as a Party leader in a General Election, and find himself in the disturbed and normal atmosphere which belongs to a live democracy. Probably at the present time General Eisenhower is feeling much the same; immersed in the bitter disputes of Washington politics, he must look back with regret to the relatively quiet life of a Commander-in-Chief in the field in time of war. In Sir Anthony Eden the people have one in whose character and experience they have full confidence, and your Lordships' House, whatever political divergencies may arise in the future, will, I am sure, follow his career in his new position of supreme responsibility in a spirit of personal friendship and of sincere good will.
  3.2 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I very much regret the absence of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury who, had he not been in the wilds of Africa at this moment, would have been extremely happy to join in these tributes. In deputising for him I feel that I can add little that is at all worthy of the very noble and eloquent tributes which have already been paid. There are, however, one or two points that can be said from the side of the national Church and of the religious community in general. Ever since their beginnings, the Church and State in this country have been closely interwoven, and in the course of our history it has fallen to the lot of the Prime Minister to recommend to the Crown those who are to preside over the various dioceses of the country. It would ill become one who has himself enjoyed the kindness of Sir Winston Churchill in this particular regard to call attention to the great care and skill with which he made those recommendations. We are all, however, fully conscious of the fact that he did not regard this as any mere formal part of his duties, but gave the greatest possible personal attention to these matters; that is a fact which will long linger in the memory of the Church in this country.
  If I may speak from the background of the religious community in general, as perhaps I am entitled to do, as Chairman of the British Council of Churches, I should wish to say how very much we have all appreciated the speeches of Sir
  328
  Winston Churchill, to which reference has already been made this afternoon. It is sometimes said that the mark of the true orator is that he should be able to read the minds and hearts of his audience and then put their thoughts and feelings in better language than they could use themselves—in other words, to interpret his hearers to themselves. If that is true, then we have had in Sir Winston Churchill a supreme example of a true orator; and we must all appreciate highly the inspiration that he has given us. He has interpreted us to ourselves.
  In the days of the war he stood out as the typical Englishman, the kind of Englishman we should each have wished to be. Although I was not present in this country during the most difficult times of the last war, I can assure your Lordships that his inspiration was felt far beyond the bounds of this country. On the other side of the world we realised something of the greatness of our country and were thankful that there was someone who could interpret that greatness as did Sir Winston Churchill. I do not know how far he would be willing to be described as a religious man, but he never for a moment concealed from us, in his speeches, the fact that he believes in a Providential ordering of human affairs. He believes that there is a Divine government of the universe, and he called upon us to contribute our efforts to that overruling purpose. By doing so with such success, he made us more than we already were: we had the picture of the hero before us, but were unaware that we could rise to the heights to which he summoned us. By urging us to contribute to the overruling purpose of Providence, he made us more than ordinary men and women: he made our country stand out in the true heroic colours which have characterised its best hours throughout the course of its history.
  This moment will undoubtedly mark an epoch. From time to time when, in the course of our history, we have been faced with dire threats of disaster, Providence has called a leader to inspire us and to enable us to overcome the difficulties and dangers that lay ahead. The figures of King Arthur and King Alfred are half obscured by the mists of antiquity, but it is a wonderful thing that we, in our own generation, have seen such a figure alive in the flesh and have

  329
  been able to associate ourselves with him. It is with full hearts that we must all offer our deepest thanks to Sir Winston Churchill for all that he has done and for all that he has been to us. As we look back at him, we can thank God for what he has been in the past; and as we look forward to the work of his successor we can believe that, so long as his inspiration endures, our gratitude will still be earned and our country will still be guided along those paths of glory that we so happily tread.
  3.8 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I feel that as a representative of the National Liberal Party I am doing only what every one of us would wish in aligning ourselves with every word that has been said by those who have so ably spoken this afternoon. On many a day since 1939 we, in our lives, have thanked God for Winston Churchill and for his courage and fearlessness in the terriffic anxieties and responsibilities which rested on his shoulders. For in great events there is always one man who has to make the final decision. Sir Winston Churchill always gave me the impression that although he was worried he was never fearful as to the result of the war. This great characteristic enabled him to keep up the morale of the nation. In our darkest hours, how often we all waited for his words of encouragement, confidence and hope! He never failed us.
  But I hope that his great world position is not over. One of the greatest hopes of peace is bound up in his influence, whether it be with his pen or his spoken words. We cannot afford to lose his qualities of leadership. If your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to read a few lines from Milton's Samson Agonistes that I came across this morning—I think they are particularly suitable at this moment:
  "O how comely it is and how reviving
  To the spirits of just men long oppress'd!
  When God into the hands of their deliverer
  Puts invincible might."
  We wish Sir Winston Churchill, our great and everlasting friend, rest and happiness in the coming years, when we hope his pen and his paint brush will not be idle. I would also lake this opportunity of wishing his successor every success, and of expressing to him every good wish.
  3.10 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the touching and noble tributes to which your Lordships have listened leave little for any words of mine to close this portion of our debate. But I feel, as does everyone who has approached this subject, that to try to compress into a few brief words the friendship of a generation and the close companionship of a decade, as one of Sir Winston's lieutenants, is almost a work of impossibility. But there are one or two matters with which I should like to trouble your Lordships.
  Among all the great figures of our historic past it is difficult to remember another who, though so peculiarly our own, we share so completely with the rest of the world. I need not speak to-day of all that Sir Winston has done for the cause of friendship between this country and the United States, but I do want to say one word, because it was my privilege to be with him, of his work in the years after the war for the cause of a united Europe. I saw him in Holland, in Belgium and in France, when I was by his side, being greeted with acclamation, respect and affection by great crowds. I watched their faces and saw the effect on every one in those crowds, from the oldest veteran to the youngest child, of merely seeing Sir Winston Churchill. And to me (and I am sure I shall be forgiven for saying it) there was an intense satisfaction in the sure foundation on which he built that work. It was the foundation of what is the truest test of a politician—adversity.
  I shall never forget how he was not merely completely unbowed but, indeed, inspired by the great political defeat which he and his Party sustained in 1945. Every great political figure makes some contribution to the living political philosophy of our country which enables us to carry on. Sir Winston, I think, has given an emphasis to some of the most important of our characteristics. He never feared to put the gravest issues in the frankest terms before the people of this country. He was always generous in victory; he was always tolerant to a different point of view; and he always believed in the great democratic instrument of discussion as a solvent of the most cruel dilemma in political life. And, to our great enrichment, he added to those other qualities which he possessed an

  331
  unquenchable humour. Looking back on the ten years during which I have had the privilege of going to meetings with him, at least once a week—and often many times more then that—I can say with complete sincerity that I have looked forward to every meeting, knowing that, however difficult the agenda, I should there experience not only that lightening touch of humour, but also ripe wisdom and that intangible x of qualities which, when analysis has done all it can, when counter-suggestions have been weighed, focuses the light of intuition, of flair—nay, more, of genius—in order to illumine the difficult problems of the day.
  When I look round this Assembly, in which there are so many old friends with whom I have walked the political road, whether on the same side or on another, I ask myself again the question which comes up in all our minds: Why is it that at some early stage we embark a frail and ill-equipped personal craft on the yeasty seas of political life? Of course there is some feeling of confidence in ourselves, of service that we believe we can give. But I think there is something more that constitutes the political virus—or whatever people may term it. It is a desire, even from the humblest position on the stage of history, to see and to hear the authentic rustle of the wings of greatness as it passes over the stage. Whatever may happen to us, whatever the future may bring, no one can take away the fact that we have heard the rustle of the wings of greatness in the years when Sir Winston Churchill has played so great a part in our lives.
  I wish to say only one word with the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition, when we turn from the past to the future. I am sure that every one of your Lordships shares with me the feeling that the greatest duty and responsibility which lies on ourselves and on our country is to see whether we can change what has hitherto been one of the maddest centuries in the troubled history of mankind into a second half-century of sanity and peace. I say only this about an old friend, colleague and leader: that Sir Anthony Eden will bring to that
  332
  pregnant problem of humanity experience, patience, understanding and, I think your Lordships will all agree, a power of personal contact unrivalled in the world today. It is for that contribution, and for what he has done, that I am sure all noble Lords will join, not only in the tribute to Sir Winston Churchill, but also in the warm welcome and good wishes that we all bring for Sir Anthony Eden today.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make new arrangements as to the administration of criminal justice in Lancashire and matters connected therewith, and to amend the law of England and Wales as to recorders of courts of quarter sessions and boroughs, as to stipendiary magistrates and their deputies, as to the liability of boroughs to contribute to the costs of magistrates' courts and courts of quarter sessions for the county and as to the constitution for purposes of appeals of the court of quarter sessions for the county of London. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

  POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister of State for Scotland, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to police forces in Scotland and to the execution of warrants in the border counties of England and Scotland. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

  OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY
  3.22 p.m.
  LORD JEFFREYS LORD JEFFREYS rose to move, That in view of the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the provisions of the Royal Warrant (and corresponding instruments) of 1919, under which provisions the rates of retired pay of officers were to be periodically revised, either upwards or downwards, to an extent not exceeding 20 per cent., according as the cost of living should rise or fall; and in view of the fact that in spite of the immense rise in the cost of living no increase above the basic rates of 1919 has been made, in the opinion of this House Her Majesty's Government should take steps to deal with this matter without further delay. The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name, I must first declare an interest. On previous occasions when I spoke on this subject I was under the impression that I myself, who retired in 1938 under the Special Warrant of that year, did not come under the 1919 Code. I now gather that the Warrant under which I retired does come under that Code, which must apply to more officers than I thought. Accordingly, I must declare an interest.
  Next, I would explain that when I refer to the Royal Warrant of 1919 I mean to include also the corresponding Admiralty and Air Force instruments of that year. My Motion deals with the failure to give effect to the Royal Warrant and the corresponding instruments of 1919. I must say at once that those instruments are not, as is sometimes thought, mere departmental orders; they are Royal Orders made in the Sovereign's name by responsible Ministers, and they guarantee the terms stated to those affected by them. My contention is, therefore, that the Government are contractually bound to give effect to those terms and that the promise given to those officers under the terms of that Warrant has been broken. I am not speaking from any Party point of view. I believe that successive Governments have been entirely influenced by that intangible, inscrutable, and withal inflexible body, the Treasury.
  I will briefly state the course of events After 1922 the cost of living fell steadily for a number of years, and from 1924 onwards retired pay under the 1919 Code
  334
  was reduced accordingly—and quite properly—under the terms of the Warrant. In 1933 it had been reduced to 11 per cent. below the basic rates of 1919. In 1934 there came a slight rise in the cost of living and the Treasury, quite improperly, as we contend, then decided to "consolidate and stabilise" (those were the expressions used) the rates of retired pay at 9½ per cent. below the basic rates of 1919. For years after that, efforts were made in Parliament to get justice for those officers, and about a year ago the Government did nearly restore the 9½ per cent. by which the 1919 rates had been reduced—I say "nearly" because what was given was 10 per cent. on the net reduced rates. If 9½ per cent. is subtracted from 100, the result is 90½ and if 10 per cent. is added to 90½ the result is99½: so that the officers are still one-half of 1 per cent. short of the 1919 rates.
  I wonder how many wage and salary earners, or indeed how many others of any description, are receiving now less than the rates of 1919, as are these old officers, survivors of a terrible and sanguinary war. I sometimes wonder whether that one-half per cent. was due merely to the Treasury instinct for pinching or whether they wanted to make out that it was not a restoration but a gift of 10 per cent. At any rate, it was certainly not generosity, but bare justice to the officers concerned. We contend now that the 1919 Code should be fully implemented by the addition to the rates of retired pay of the 20 per cent. authorised in that Warrant. In support of that claim I would say that, according to the Consumers' Expenditure Average Value Index, the cost of living has increased since 1935 by no less than 153 per cent., and since 1919 by 87·4 per cent.
  As regards the effects of an addition of 20 per cent. to the 1919 rates, I would point out that in 1951 there was a new Royal Warrant which gave increased rates of retired pay to those officers who retired subsequently to the date of that Warrant. The addition of 20 per cent. to the 1919 rates would have the following effects. It would bring the total retired pay of the most junior officers—lieutenants in the Navy, captains and subalterns in the Army, and corresponding ranks in the Air Force—to some £40; per annum less than the 1951 new rates; it would bring the total retired pay of the next group,

  335
  what one might call the middle group —lieutenant-commanders, commanders and captains in the Navy; majors, lieutenant-colonels and colonels in the Army—to from £40 to £85 more than the 1951 rates; it would bring the total retired pay of rear-admirals and major-generals to the same amount as the 1951 rates; it would bring the total retired pay of vice-admirals and lieutenant-generals to £40 per annum more than the 1951 rates; and it would bring the total retired pay of admirals and generals to £20 per annum less than the 1951 rates. But all those retiring under the 1951 Code are to get, in addition to retired pay, a grant on the termination of their service of a lump sum of £1,000. Is it unreasonable to ask that those who retired under the 1919 Code should get the benefit of the terms promised them—for they were promised—that is to say, an increase of up to 20 per cent. on the basic rates of that year?
  The number of officers drawing retired pay under the 1919 Code was given by Mr. Birch in another place in December, 1953, as 16,500. But this is a diminishing number, for not a few die every year, and that number will certainly have decreased considerably since December, 1953. On March 10 of this year the Minister of Defence stated that the initial cost of granting a 20 per cent. increase on the rates of Service retired pay under the 1919 Code would be a little under £1 million per annum; but he added that this amount would diminsh by about £80,000 each year. What is £1 million, to do justice to old and faithful servants of the State, compared with a total expenditure of certainly over £4,500 million a year?—I do not know what the total expenditure will be in this year's Budget, but there is, I understand, a substantial Budget surplus. Millions of pounds are, in fact, being spent in all directions. Wages and salaries—even the pay of the Services—have all risen greatly. A deficit of over £400 million is, I understand, contemplated in respect of National Insurance in twenty-five years' time. There does not seem to be any reason for, or any steps being taken towards, real economy in other directions. Surely, if money must be saved, it can be saved in other directions than from the pensions of the officers who retired after the
  336
  greatest of wars, and which are emphatically debts of honour.
  It should not be forgotten that income tax is deducted from retired pay, which makes a considerable difference in the rates; nor that the value of money has greatly depreciated since 1919. It should be remembered, also, that there is strong feeling on this subject, amounting to a grievance, among retired officers, and that that feeling is doing no good to the Service, for the example of their elders and their treatment in this matter of retired pay is causing many desirable young men to refrain from applying for commissions. It should be remembered that the Secretary for War, in his 1953 Memorandum on the Army, stated that there was a shortage of candidates—"candidates of the right type," to use his words—for commissions in the Army. I imagine that that shortage still persists, and it is not a little due to the dissatisfaction of their elders on this subject of retired pay. What would be said of some public corporation, bank or insurance company which had undertaken such a liability towards its employees, or others, if it were to refuse to honour that liability? What would be the verdict of public opinion? And what, I wonder, would be the finding if such a corporation were sued in court?
  I come now to the arguments raised by the Treasury at different times in support of their action as regards officers' retired pay under the 1919 Code. Some of these arguments may be brought out again to-day, but not one of them, I would say, has any substance in it. First, it has been said that stabilisation was not unpopular, and that even those affected wished for it. This is entirely incorrect. Stabilisation was unilateral. Those affected were not consulted or given any chance of expressing an opinion on the subject. I would say, without fear of contradiction, that when it was made clear that it was to be at 9½ per cent. below the basic rates, it was bitterly resented. I well remember coming back from India in the winter of 1935—I knew nothing about this matter beforehand—and meeting some of my friends who had retired and who were complaining bitterly that their pensions had been reduced. If there was feeling about the variation of the rates, it was feeling against the continual fall in those rates. No one

  337
  expected that when they might have begun to rise they would be stabilised, as they were, at 9½ per cent. below the basic rates. In support of what I have just said, I would quote a letter which has been put into my hands, written to the Admiralty at that time by a retired naval officer. It runs as follows:
  "Sir, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of circular letter L.P. No. 8 dated June, 1935, which states that my retired pay shall be consolidated at approximately 9½ per cent. below the standard rates. I wish to point out that when I retired in January, 1923, I accepted a definite offer, namely, that a portion of my retired pay would vary as the cost of living. May I be informed whether the effect of your letter is to indicate that His Majesty's Government are breaking the contract they made with me when I retired? If my surmise is correct, I wish to protest against such a breach of faith."
  That, I think, gives a fair idea of how officers regarded this reduction when it was first made.
  Next there is the argument that any increase would cause a general demand by ex-civil servants and other pensioners for increases of pension. I would say at once that there can be no comparison between officers and civil servants—I believe that is really admitted now—either as regards conditions of service or methods of reckoning pensions. These are questions into which I am quite prepared to go in detail if my statement is refuted or queried. It is now generally admitted that there is no analogy between the two sets of conditions, And as regards other pensioners, not civil servants, it should be remembered that The 1919 Code was a definite Royal agreement, made by the Minister in the Sovereign's name, whereby the officers were promised certain terms, and that other pensioners have not got such an agreement. There is also the argument that stabilisation for the Civil Service was recommended by the Whitley Council of the Civil Service But the Whitley Council have nothing whatever to do with officers, and, as I have stated, there is no comparison between the conditions of officers and civil servants.
  Next, there is the argument that no alteration in the pensions codes can be retrospective, and that pensions, once awarded, should not be changed in either direction. But the stabilisation of 1953 was retrospective—retrospective for some sixteen years—and the principle of no alteration of rates has been broken quite
  338
  frequently, not only in the downward movement of rates in the 'twenties and early 'thirties, but also in the case of pensions in the lower income groups, where cost of living increases have been given under the Pensions (Increase) Acts. It has been recently stated by a Government spokesman in another place that the Pensions Code of 1919 was no more a contract between the Government and the officers than was the stabilisation of 1935, as both were imposed—that was the expression used—on the officers by the Government. "Imposed" the stabilisation most certainly was. But the Code of 1919 was the promise of the Crown made through responsible Ministers.
  I would next draw attention to certain mis-statements in Command Paper 9092, which tried to put the best complexion on the Government action. That Command Paper stated that the Government
  "accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission in respect of civil servants, and a similar recommendation made by the May Committee in respect of Forces' officers"
  that these pensions should be stabilised, whereas in fact paragraph 114 of the May Report says what appears to me to be quite the opposite, namely:
  "We think it not inequitable that as from a date as soon as possible after July 1, 1931, the rate of deduction should be based on the average cost of living over a period of six months before that date, and that it should thereafter be subject to more frequent review."
  Then, paragraph 173 says:
  "We have already recommended an acceleration of the cost of living adjustment on pay and on existing pensions and a similar adjustment should be made on future pensions."
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: May I interrupt my noble friend for a moment? He has read two paragraphs from the May Committee Report. If he has not a copy of the Report with him, perhaps I could read paragraph 174. That says:
  "Apart from this change"—
  that is the change which my noble friend read out—
  "we think that the pensions scheme for officers of the three Services calls for reconsideration."
  LORD JEFFREYS: Reconsideration, very likely; but it does not say in those words that it should not be based on the average cost of living. It does not contradict what the Committee said in paragraph 114. So far as the May Committee is concerned, those are hardly recommendations in favour of what has been—I will

  339
  not say anything about the future—Government policy.
  Finally, there is the argument used on various occasions, and in another place in a recent debate, to the effect that it was decided to abolish the 1919 Code on the grounds that it was unsound that the remuneration of Crown servants should vary directly with the cost of living, and, further, that the system of variable awards was tried for a short time, was found to be unsatisfactory and was finally abandoned in 1935, after it had been tried for a good many years and always in a downward direction. Who decided to abolish the 1919 Code? The answer is, the Treasury, presumably because it was inconvenient to them. This decision was quite regardless of their obligations to the officers concerned.
  Now I am going to assert, on the contrary, that, far from being unsound, the system under which the rates were to vary upwards or downwards according to the rise or fall in the cost of living was a fundamentally sound one, and that the Minister who was responsible for the Royal Warrant of 1919 foresaw, when others possibly did not, the instability and variations of the cost of living in the near future, and that that Minister did not, without due consideration, affix his signature to that Warrant. The signature in question is "Winston Spencer Churchill," and I confidently maintain that, far from being unsound, the policy of the 1919 Code which he then initiated was, like many other of his actions, to which great tributes have been paid, and deservedly paid, in your Lordships' House today, wise and foreseeing in a very high high degree. I wonder whether my noble friend who is to reply has ever inquired of the outgoing Prime Minister whether he considers that the Warrant which he signed in 1919 was unsound and likely to prove unsatisfactory in practice. If he did make such an inquiry, I wonder what reply he received.
  I have, I think, dealt with all the arguments which have been used in the past on behalf of the, to my mind, indefensible policy of the Treasury with regard to the 1919 Code. I do not know whether we shall hear any fresh arguments to-day. However that may be, I once more plead for justice—it is nothing short of it—for these retired officers, and for the fulfilment by the State of its contract with them.
  340
  In my submission, these retired officers have a right to the full benefit of the terms—and I hope they will get it—of the 1919 Code. I am going to conclude by asking for consideration, not as a right but as an act of grace, of the cases of the few surviving officers of the Navy, Army and Indian Army—there are none of the Royal Air Force, because it did not exist in those days—who retired finally prior to 1914. I am informed that there are about 50 of these who have received no increases under pensions increase schemes, and whose minimum age is nearer ninety than eighty. I ask that consideration be given to their cases, and that it be borne in mind that their pensions were granted when the £ was a golden sovereign and not the depreciated paper £ of to-day, and when income tax was in the neighbourhood of 3s. in the £ or less. I beg to move.
  Moved, That in view of the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the provisions of the Royal Warrant (and corresponding instruments) of 1919, under which provisions the rates of retired pay of officers were to be periodically revised, either upwards or downwards, to an extent not exceeding 20 per cent., according as the cost of living should rise or fall; and in view of the fact that in spite of the immense rise in the cost of living no increase above the basic rates of 1919 has been made, in the opinion of this House Her Majesty's Government should take steps to deal with this matter without further delay.—(Lord Jeffreys.)
  3.48 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to support the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Jeffreys, in the powerful case he has put to your Lordships to-day. As we all know, he has taken a great interest in this subject for years past, and has been a steady and powerful advocate of the interests of these gallant retired officers of the various Services. I am speaking personally to-day, because there is no Party line on this question—in fact, it never has been a Party question. The noble Lord, in a sense, has kept it out of Party. On July 21, 1952, I led an all-Party deputation to the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, who was then Minister of Defence, and that delegation was composed not only of Members of all Parties, but of Members of

  341
  both Houses and representatives of the officers' associations concerned with this issue.
  In 1946, the Labour Government did a great deal to assist the pensioners and those who had retired, but this particular problem was still unsolved at that time. We urged upon the then Minister of Defence not only the solution of this problem but the solution of a number of others. We urged, for example, the necessity for reforms in pensions to officers' dependants, to the widows and children of deceased officers. We pointed out at that time that a captain's widow received only £50 a year basic pension. There was also a humiliating means test for those ladies. We had heartrending tales told us by women in this country and abroad who, in many cases, were living on a miserable pittance.
  On November 19, 1952, in reply to a Question by me, the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, rejected any increase in the pension of those who retired before September 1, 1950, but promised consideration of the other questions. He was as good as his word, because on December 16, 1952, again in reply to a Question by me, after, I am told, some forceful and soldierly language by the noble and gallant Earl the Field Marshal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury were impressed by the arguments—or the language—and they improved materially, the lot of the dependants. The basic pension of a captain's widow went up to £110 a year, which was more than double what it was before. The means test was abolished, and certain other requirements also were abolished.
  We thought, and we said at that time, that the Government were coming along in the right direction, and they had certainly made a great step forward so far as the dependants were concerned; but we were not able at that time to obtain from the Government any promise whatsoever that they would do justice to the retired officers themselves. The case for the retired officers has been very ably put to-day, if I may say so, by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Jeffreys. There is no need for me to reiterate the case that he has put, or to elaborate it. I merely say this: that in the last three years, as we all knew, there has been a constant rise in the cost of living. This problem
  342
  is an ever-pressing one. It is not one which is getting better; in fact, it seems the whole time to be getting worse. I think noble Lords might direct their attention to an inquiry as to why the Government, who were very willing indeed to listen to reason over the dependants of dead warriors, were not prepared to do so in the case of the living warriors, those who retired before December 19, 1945.
  While the first case was an excellent one, it seemed to me that the second one was an equally good one. Why did the Government listen to one and not to the other? I suggest that the reason for it is that the Treasury and the Government are advised that it is no longer a case of human need; it is no longer a human problem. It is a Principle, with a capital "P," which is at stake. The old soldiers, the retired officers, are a Problem, again with a capital "P." The desire is not to make them a Precedent, once more with a capital "P." The old soldier, the retired officer, has to eat; he has to clothe himself and house himself, and clothe, house and feed his dependants, even if he is a Principle, a Problem and a Precedent. It is true that "old soldiers never die," but these old soldiers are fading away as rapidly as they can. If it is the Government's policy that they should fade away, and the problem with them, then all I can say is that it is a highly discreditable one.
  The Government are firmly of the opinion that pensions should not be adjusted to meet changes in circumstances which arise after retirement, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Jeffreys, has told us. On what basis they rule that, it is difficult to understand. So far as I am aware, no one else in the country is bound by it, and it would certainly be rejected as being entirely impracticable if anybody suggested it. For example, employees of all kinds, whether retired or not, are constantly affected by the rise in the cost of living, and their pensions or emoluments are increased from time to time. Certainly my own employees have never suggested to me that I should use any other basis for their reward and emolument than the cost of living. They always come along when they want a rise, which they do at fairly frequent intervals, and say: "The cost of living

  343
  has gone up. We can no longer live on our salary. We want an increase," and usually one has to give it.
  Then again it is the case with old age pensioners and Members of Parliament. It seems that only these old retired officers and Peers of Parliament are exempt from the general rule; that they are not affected by a rise in the cost of living, the retired officers getting only what they got very many years ago and the Peers not getting anything at all. I understand that the point of the argument used by the Treasury and the Government is that the cost of increases—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the noble Lord suggesting that there is a difference between the attitude of this Government and that of the late Government? He keeps saying "the Government," but his Government took exactly the same view.
  LORD OGMORE: Our Government did a considerable amount in 1946. They did not deal with this particular problem because, for one thing, the circumstances were not the same then. The cost of living was not so high then as it is now. The increasing cost of living has brought this matter constantly to the forefront. As I say, there were a number of problems which were dealt with by the Government of the day, some in 1946 by the late Government and some in 1952 by this Government; but this problem has never been tackled by either Government. If the Labour Government were in, I should say to them exactly what I am saying now; but, as they are not in, I cannot say it to them. I can say it only to the Government that are in. I am trying to find out in my own mind why there is this difference of attitude between the treatment of the dependants and the treatment of the retired officers.
  I have already explained that there is this, as I think, entirely illogical rule, that pensions should not be adjusted to meet changes in circumstances when every other emolument is. There is also the contention (both these things were said in another place by the Minister dealing with the matter, so it is not imaginary on my part) that the cost of the increases would have to be borne, in part, by others on small fixed incomes. Of course they would, in part—but so will everything else. It is quite true, as all your Lordships
  344
  know, that the burden for such persons on small fixed incomes is a hard one: they are subject to constantly increasing rises in expenditure, and they have no increases in income to meet these rises. But why pick on old soldiers? This applies to all increases in expenditure—the increase required to make the H-bomb; to provide new and elaborate quarters for ambassadors in foreign capitals with unpronounceable names; for aircraft carriers, which some of your Lordships seem to think are obsolete; and for a new and expensive fighter aircraft which cannot fire its guns without hitting its own petrol tanks. All these things, and many million more items of expenditure, necessary and unnecessary—and most of them are necessary in these days—will affect the standard of living and the taxation of those living on fixed incomes. But that is not an argument for saying that the retired officers should not be given any more. It may be a good argument for saying that the Government should substantially reduce taxation. But why start on the retired officers? Why not start on some of these very big items which might (I do not know) be possible of reduction?
  The Government make play with the argument that the 1935 agreement declaring stabilisation was popular, or at any rate not unpopular. I think that this is dubious. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys has gone a good deal further. He says that that is completely untrue; that in fact it was highly unpopular with the officers of the day; and he quoted a letter from a retired officer who charges the Government in so many words with having betrayed their trust to him. In any case, I should imagine that in those days, taking the climate of opinion, many officers did not query the suggestion made to them because they thought that they were being patriotic. People in many walks of life—Ministers, civil servants, teachers and so on—were having cuts in pensions and in pay, and the retired officers probably thought that they were being patriotic. For, as we know, there is no more patriotic section of the public than the Service people, who would be only too anxious to help in that way. But they did not anticipate that they would be the only ones whose patriotic gesture would continue to operate through all these years when the need for it had gone.

  345
  Secondly, in many cases, they may not have understood the ramifications of the subject—it is a highly complicated subject, as any noble Lord who has made a study of it knows. In fact, to set the Government of the day, the Treasury and the financial Departments, against the retired officers is rather like putting Dodson and Fogg against Colonel Newcome, with the same result. Just imagine the effect on a retired officer when, in present circumstances, he sees practically everyone who is in a position to obtain an increase in his or her emoluments getting such an increase, while he is still reduced to this very low figure, based on a standard of living and of expenditure many years old.
  On the Order Paper to-day there appears an Amendment to the Motion to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Munster. I would say that this is a classic example of "new think" and "double talk"—to use the words of 1984. It exhorts us (that is your Lordships) to exhort them to keep something under review, well knowing that they have no intention of taking our advice or of taking any action whatever. I should much have preferred the Government to come along, as they always have done in the past, with a speech extolling the work of the retired officers, saying what fine fellows they were, but that they—the Government—could not do anything; and then to sit down. That at least would be honest. But to lead anybody to vote (because I hope this matter will be pressed to a Division) for the Government Amendment, expressed in the way it is, is, I think, to do nothing but mislead the House; and, as I have already said, is a classic example of "new think" and "double talk."
  As I say, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, will press this matter to a Division if no satisfactory answer is forthcoming. I speak personally, because there is no Party issue involved, but I feel that it is a matter upon which those who feel strongly should register their vote. I hope that the situation which arose in the course of the passage of the Road Traffic Bill will not be adopted to-day. Your Lordships may remember that after opening shots, a brisk engagement appeared to be imminent, but at the first signs of retaliation by the Government certain noble Lords opposite, some with Naval connections, struck their colours and sank beneath the waves, unhonoured but not
  346
  unmourned. To-day, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, who is a Guardsman, will not submit to any such humiliating fate.
  4.5 p.m.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to support the Motion moved by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Jeffreys. I think I shall be able to put my argument briefly, particularly in view of the large number of speakers who are to follow. The issue before your Lordships lies really in a narrow historical compass. Historically, the position is that a system of pensions for the Forces, related to the cost of living, was introduced in 1919. The cost of living proceeded to fall until 1933, and during all that time the system was used to reduce the pensions payable. Then the cost of living proceeded to rise in 1934 and 1935, in which year the Government of the day completely abolished the system—I think they may have been looking forward and visualising what was to happen in 1936, 1937, 1938, and so on—and stabilised the pensions. Frankly, that does not look to me a very good action on the part of the Government, who are the uncontrolled employers, not subject to any legal liabilities, of Her Majesty's Forces. The defence put up by the Government for rejecting this Motion and for putting forward an Amendment, consists really of two arguments. The first is a reference in the proposed Amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Munster—
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): I have not moved it yet. The noble Lord is criticising the Amendment. He has not the least idea what I am going to say on it.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: No; but I am allowed to have read it, am I not? I have read it with great care, and I have also read that, wonderful Treasury document called Command Paper 9092, upon which it is largely based. This is a perfectly wonderful Paper from which I shall enjoy quoting. One argument that I imagine the noble Earl will use is itself in this printed Paper, and it is that the rates of pension have in fact been raised by 10 per cent. We all know that broadly, but not perhaps completely, that restores the 1919 level; in fact, so far

  347
  as possible it does what the Government can do to abolish altogether the system of relating pensions to cost of living, and to regard it as never having existed. That is in accord with what I say is their second argument, which is most clearly expressed in this Command Paper—namely, that any system of varying pensions by relation to the cost of living is wrong in principle and ought to be abandoned.
  If one looks at the Paper one sees, in paragraph 41, that the 1919 system is admitted as possibly suitable for the abnormal circumstances of the period following World War I, but is considered clearly unsuited for any other circumstances, and certainly for circumstances as exceptionally abnormal as those following World War II. I should like to ask three questions on that statement in Command Paper 9092, and I hope the noble Earl will answer them all for me. First, are not the consequences of World War II as abnormal as, or even more abnormal than, those of World War I, the difference being that in the second case we have had a continuous and rapid rise of prices and inflation of the cost of living? It is just as bad as, and in some ways much worse than, what happened after the First World War. Let us hope that Her Majesty's Government will altogether abolish this continuous rise in prices and destruction of the value of money.
  My second question is: if the view of Her Majesty's Government is as stated in this document, that pensions once fixed should be kept fixed forever, why do they not apply that to all other pensions? Why not apply it to pensions under the National Insurance Act, which I am delighted to think the Government have just raised simply and wholly on account of the cost of living? National Insurance pensions were raised also, I would point out, without regard to poverty or any form of means test, so as to be sufficient by themselves for subsistence. Why did Her Majesty's Government do that? Why should those pensions be adjustable to the cost of living when pensions given to people who have earned them by serving Her Majesty in the fighting Forces are not adjustable, whatever happens to the cost of living? One further question: Why not apply the same principle to
  348
  pensions in the universities? I do not think the noble Earl will have heard of this, but I hope he will take the opportunity to be informed—
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: if I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I point out that we are discussing here one point, officers' pensions. I hoped the noble Lord was not going to bring in the question of other pensions and other, quite different, services, because that is a subject on which a large number of noble Lords would have wished to speak.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: I am not asking Her Majesty's Government to do anything about these other systems of pensions; but when you defend what is now being done in regard to the Forces, it is an absolutely legitimate argument to ask why you do not apply the same rules to the Forces as you apply in other directions. I will go on to speak of the universities, because the pensions given there are for service. They are not directly controlled by the Government, but when, quite recently owing to inflation, the value of the pensions earned by retired professors (as well as retired colonels) had diminished owing to inflation, Her Majesty's Government were very sympathetic, and, in fact, gave an additional grant which could be used by the universities to raise those pensions. Colonels are almost as deserving people as professors.
  My third question is: why have Her Majesty's Government recognised the need for increasing the pensions of people who retire now, while giving nothing to those who retired in the past? I know that the answer is that they have to raise the pensions of people who are now entering the Services, or those already in, because not sufficient people would join unless reasonable remuneration was offered. The point which I want to bring home to Her Majesty's Government is that pensions are part of remuneration. I suggest that to remunerate the Forces by fixed pensions and then to let money value depreciate is to be a very bad employer. Historically it is on record that one of the Tudor Sovereigns, Henry VIII, having to employ forces in Northern Ireland, arranged to mint a large number of bad coins which were to be sent to Ireland to pay the troops, with a note made in the Council of the day, by the Treasury, that as soon as the troops

  349
  had been paid—but not before—the value of those coins should be cried down. I am not saying that Her Majesty's Government are acting exactly like Henry VIII, but they are doing something which is in some ways not much more admirable.
  I hope I shall not get the noble Earl on his feet again when I say that this problem of the Forces, which is the only one with which I am asking the Government to deal, applies to many others. Her Majesty's Government have been forced, by persuasion and a certain amount of pressure, to do something for retired civil servants. I hope they will find themselves going on to do more for retired civil servants, but I am not asking the noble Earl to speak about them now. This problem applies to all sorts of people. The inflation that is causing the trouble may not be within the control of Her Majesty's Government. Every time a trade union or an employers' association puts up the money price for doing exactly the same work as before, it does a hardship to the unfortunate pensioner who is living upon a rigidly fixed pension such as the Government allow. Though Her Majesty's Government may not be able to stop that happening, I want to call attention to a fact which the whole country should realise: that every time wages go up for doing no more work than was done before or producing nothing better than before, this hardship arises. Though Her Majesty's Government may be unable to prevent it, I beg that, to the extent of their power, they should offset that hardship for all people if they can but, above all, for those who served the country in Her Majesty's Forces in the past and are now living on rigidly fixed pensions.
  Her Majesty's Government, when they look at paragraph 46 of Command Paper 9092, will realise that there is here an evil crying for a remedy. That paragraph states:
  "The fact is that at one time pensions and retired pay fell as the cost of living did, but have retrained fixed while it has risen, and risen fairly considerably."
  I should like to know who was the Treasury official who put in the word "fairly." That is a fairly magnificent admission that there is here a real evil. I beg Her Majesty's Government to do something more than is indicated in the Amendment. I rather hoped the noble Earl would not move his Amendment but
  350
  would accept this Motion. The noble Earl has not told me his intention, but I beg him to be much more forthcoming than that Amendment. I will end with three points: pensions for Service are part of remuneration; Her Majesty's Government should be a good employer, and they should find a way to do much better in the way of Forces pensions than they have done hitherto.
  4.20 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I have spoken before in your Lordships' House on this subject and I am not prepared to make the same speech again. I have, however, just one or two quite simple questions which I hope the noble Earl who is going to move the Amendment will be able to answer. Before putting them, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Jeffreys on the admirable and very clear way he has put his case—with which I entirely agree. My first question is: Does the noble Earl, Lord Munster, agree that the 1919 Code did exist? I should like to know that. We presume that that Code did exist. In the Amendment upon which the noble Earl is going to speak reference is made to quite a number of matters. I hope that I shall not get into trouble for referring to them now. The noble Earl has not yet spoken, and I am allowed to speak only once, so I cannot speak after he has spoken. I would therefore ask him this very pertinent question. In the Amendment he suggests that the House should recognise the action taken by the Government in March, 1954. He also makes reference to what took place in 1935 and to the pensions increase scheme of 1952. Do those provisions definitely carry out the very solemn Code which was entered into in 1919? If the noble Earl can assure me that they do, then I shall be prepared to vote for the Government. If that is not so, I shall go into the Lobby against the Government.
  4.22 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER had given notice of an Amendment to the Motion, To leave out all the words after "That," and insert "this House, recognising the action taken in the matter of the retired pay of officers by Her Majesty's government in March, 1954, to ensure to all officers in receipt of retired pay at the consolidated rates introduced in 1935 an

  351
  increase of 10 per cent.; and noting the additional assistance made available to retired officers of limited means under the pensions increase scheme of 1952; resolves that Her Majesty's Government should continue to keep under review the needs of these officers." The noble Earl said: My Lords, once again my noble and gallant friend Lord Jeffreys has seen fit to call your Lordships' attention to the subject of officers' pensions, and I certainly appreciate, as much as other noble Lords, the moderate way in which he presented his case. I hope that I shall be able to reply in the same moderate but, nevertheless, firm fashion. It is, I think, unnecessary for me to remind this House that the subject which we are now discussing is extremely complicated, and before I come to moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I shall find it necessary to move somewhat outside the terms of the noble and gallant Lord's Motion in order to present all the facts of the case.
  If I should delay the House for an undue time, I trust that I may have your Lordships' attention and your indulgence. Perhaps it would be suitable that I should answer various questions which have been addressed to me by the four noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, was good enough to inform me that he intended to ask about retired Army officers who are still receiving retired pay at the rates which prevailed before 1919. My noble and gallant friend, I think, made one mistake here. Every officer who is in receipt of retired pay, whether under the 1919 Code or the Codes of earlier date, is eligible for the hardship increases of pension under the various increase schemes, provided, of course, that on every occasion he satisfies the condition as to age and income. I have no doubt that the great majority could automatically satisfy the condition as to age.
  The officers who are surviving today on the pre-1914 rates must be those officers who did not earn any re-assessment of their retired pay through service in the First World War. It is thought—though I would not for one moment say that my figures are necessarily correct—that they number twenty-six. As I say, that figure may be subject to correction. It is, moreover, believed that all those twenty-six officers have sufficient means,
  352
  as they have not yet applied for the benefits which have been provided under the pensions increase schemes. Of this figure of twenty-six, I understand that thirteen are cases of early voluntary retirement, two are insane and six are cases of officers retired with a disability not necessarily due to service; and the remainder retired on superannuation or received their award in other special circumstances. It is known that sixteen of these officers retired before they reached the age of forty, and five retired before they reached the age of thirty. It is a very difficult problem to ascertain the number of officers who are drawing pensions under pre-1914 rates. That is all the information I have so far been able to extract. I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War the views which the noble and gallant Lord has put forward in the discussion this afternoon.
  LORD JEFFREYS: May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? With regard to the pre-1914 officers, I merely asked that, as an act of grace, they should be considered: I did not make any claim at all. But I do make a claim as regards the 1919 officers.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I fully realise that the noble and gallant Lord asked that the position of the officers to whom he has referred should be considered. I am perfectly prepared to put that view to my right honourable friend.
  The noble and gallant Lord then proceeded to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 26 of the White Paper, where the impression—I agree with him—was inadvertently given that the May Committee recommended specifically that the cost of living system for retired officers should be abolished. Frankly, I do not believe that the mistake is really of any significance whatsoever. For throughout the Report, if your Lordships will read it, it can be observed that the May Committee were critical of the system of variations which took place in accordance with the changes in the cost of living, and I really think that no objective reader could avoid coming to the conclusion that, taking the Report as a whole, the May Committee, in fact, did recommend reconsideration of the pensions schemes for all officers of the three Services.

  353
  I pass from that to deal with the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. He, as I understood him, referred to the pension increases given under the National Insurance Acts, and he endeavoured to draw a parallel between them and retired public service pensions. The noble Lord knows far better than I do that the two are completely separate, and that it is not possible in any way to liken one to another. Public service pensions, being occupational pensions, are fundamentally different from national retirement and war disability pensions. They are based, as the noble Lord well knows, on length of service and rank, or pay on retirement, they may be larger or smaller than National Insurance pensions. If I were to accept the noble Lord's argument, it would mean at once a radical alteration in the principles on which public service pensions are based.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: About time, too!
  LORD BEVERIDGE: Would the noble Earl agree that the basis of the National Insurance pensions is that they are contributory, contributions being paid in respect of employment?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am coming to that point now. I was going to say—and the noble Lord is well aware of this as, indeed, other noble Lords are as well—that pensions given under the National Insurance Acts are shortly to be increased, but the increase in the basic rate is accompanied by larger weekly contributions to the insurance Fund. Increases have been given to public service pensioners, which includes retired officers, but no retired officer has been asked to make any contribution whatever to a pension fund at any time during the whole course of his service. The noble Lord, with his wide and intimate knowledge of this question, will see how fundamentally different are the two forms of pensions, and I feel certain that on reflecting upon the matter again, he will agree with me that it would be wrong to try to equate the two.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask why it would be wrong? I am an absolute ignoramus in this field, but I should have thought it the sensible thing to do. If there is a constantly rising or falling standard of living, why is it utterly
  354
  wrong to make a pension have some relation to it?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am coming to the point the noble Lord has raised. The point I am making is whether it is possible to liken the pensions under the National Insurance scheme and those given to retired officers of the Armed Services. Since we last debated this subject, in December, 1953, Her Majesty's Government have published a White Paper on retired pay and pensions. In spite of the scorn which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, poured on that White Paper, we had certainly hoped that it would have removed the widespread misunderstandings, as well as giving a full explanation of the policy which successive Governments have followed in this matter.
  First, I will deal with the main part of the noble Lord's Motion concerning the provisions of the 1919 Code which enabled periodical revisions of pensions to be made in accordance with a sliding scale. Your Lordships know that this matter has been discussed many times, but even so, even to the extent of wearying your Lordships, who have heard all the arguments before, I must deal with the matter afresh. My noble friend's Motion, whilst omitting all mention of improvements in retired pay which have taken place in recent years, condemns the Government for having failed to give effect to the Royal Warrant of 1919. My noble friend will appreciate as well as I do, however, that that Warrant no longer exists, having been amended by new ones made in 1931, 1932 and 1935, and finally being superseded altogether. Therefore, it is quite impracticable for this or any other Government to give effect to an instrument which is no longer operating.
  LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, the noble Earl is evidently not aware of what I think every old soldier and old sailor is aware, that the Warrant under which an officer retires cannot be cancelled so far as he is concerned. A new Warrant may bind those who have not yet retired, but that is quite a different thing.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am coming to all those questions. What I am saying is that the Code of 1919 is no longer in existence. The Motion of my noble friend implies that no increase has been given

  355
  whatever above the basic rates of 1919. As my noble friend rightly pointed out, those rates were stabilised in 1935. Since that date, increases have been given to all officers who draw pensions under those stabilised rates. Where officers qualify for assistance under hardship schemes the additions have brought their pensions, I think, well above, but certainly above, the basic 1919 rates. But what I imagine the noble Lord really asks is that Her Majesty's Government should reintroduce the provisions of the 1919 Code and abolish the other Royal Warrants which affected retired officers who drew pensions under the original Warrant.
  LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I am not asking the noble Earl to reintroduce; I am asking him to give effect, so far as officers who come under it are concerned, to the Warrant of 1919, which should never have been altered.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: That may be; but, if the noble Lord will forgive me, the Warrant of 1919 no longer exists, and the Government cannot implement the provisions of a Warrant which does not exist and which has been superseded by others. That is why I say that my noble friend is asking the Government to reintroduce the 1919 Code and to abolish the other Royal Warrants which have affected officers who retired under the stabilised Code.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this historic question? He stresses the fact that the Code of 1919 has been abolished: will he agree that it was abolished by the Government just after two years of rising prices indicated to the Government that it might be awkward for them?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It is difficult to carry on an argument with constant interruptions, but let me point out that what the noble Lord has just said is entirely wrong. The matter was decided in 1932 and the new pensions code was stabilised in 1935. However, I shall come to that in due course.
  LORD HANKEY: My Lords, could the noble Earl say how long the 1919 Code was in existence? Up to what date was it operative for officers?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Up to 1935, when it was superseded by the new Code.
  356
  I thought I must direct my noble friend's attention to the terms of his Motion. Be that as it may, I feel that I should now explain in full the effects of the 1919 Code, which provided for retired pay to be calculated on rank or age and length of service, with maximum rates for each rank. It also provided, as my noble friend is aware—and in this it was unique among retired pay codes in this country —that the high rates then introduced should be regarded as attributable to the high cost of living and, therefore, that they should be subject to revision either upwards or downwards, taking into account the variation in the cost of living. I do not think it has been mentioned this afternoon that that Code applied equally to pay and half-pay, as well as to pensions; but, as we know, it has long been withdrawn and a new Code substituted.
  Amongst other things, the Code provided that the first review of rates should take place in 1924 and that subsequent revisions could be made at three-yearly intervals. Each of these revisions was to apply to retired pay already in issue under the Code, as well as to that of officers retiring after the revision, and a formula was worked out for that purpose, the effect of which is to be seen from Appendix II of the White Paper. When the first revision came to be made in 1924, the cost of living had fallen from 107½ per cent. above the 1914 level to 69 per cent. above the 1914 level; and according to the formula a reduction of 7 per cent. in retired pay would have been appropriate. But in actual fact the reduction was fixed at 5½ per cent. In 1927, when the next review took place, a further cut of one half of 1 per cent. was made, and an additional cut of 1 per cent. occurred in the year 1930. The formula at Appendix II of the White Paper shows that a total reduction of 8 per cent. would have been justified, whereas, in fact, the figure was fixed at 7 per cent. The position was specially reviewed in July, 1931, when the cost of living had dropped to 45 per cent. above 1914. On this occasion a deduction of 11½ per cent. could have been made, but the actual cut was 8 per cent.
  In the autumn of 1931 the nation was faced with a serious financial crisis, as your Lordships may remember, and a strict application of the sliding scale formula for retired officers was made;

  357
  accordingly, the rate of reduction was increased to 11 per cent., and the Royal Warrant of that year shortened the period of time between each revision. In 1932 the Government of the day decided to abandon this completely unique system, whereby both pay and pensions for officers varied with the upward or downward trend in the cost of living, but the final consolidation was not effected until July 1, 1935, at a level of 9½ per cent. below the 1919 rate. In the meantime, retired pay was temporarily stabilised at 11 per cent. below the 1919 figures, although here again, under the formula, further deductions ought to have been made. Let me here emphasise that on the cost of living figure for 1935 a cut of 12½ per cent. would have been justified, which, but for the alterations (made from time to time in the retired pay code) would have operated ever since. Thus, when stabilisation was introduced, pensioners benefited by 3 per cent., and that ran for a number of years; that is to say, these retired officers were given something greater than that to which they were entitled under the formula which my noble and gallant friend is so anxious to see strictly adhered to.
  I have tried to give your Lordships a simplified and, I trust, accurate account of what could have occurred and what did happen. But, whichever view may be held by noble Lords, it is obvious that the Governments throughout those years leaned well on the side of generosity and, as I have said, gave to pensioners larger pensions than those to which they were entitled. It might well be thought that this very action was in itself a breach of the 1919 Code, but I can trace no record of complaints from retired officers—indeed, if anybody had the right to complain it might well have been the British taxpayer. It was only after the cost of living had moved in the opposite direction that successive Governments were accused of "breaking faith"—if I may say so with respect, an unhappy expression used by my noble and gallant friend in this House on December 15, 1953.
  Here I should like to give the House some details about pensions, quoting cases in point: it is rather going into detail, but I feel it is important that the House should realise what has happened since 1935. I take the case of a married
  358
  man who is a retired captain, over sixty years of age, with no private income whatsoever. His stabilised pension in 1935 amounted to £272 per annum, instead of the £300 which he would have received at the full 1919 rate. That officer to-day is receiving an additional £60 a year under the 1944 and 1947 schemes. That gives him a pension of £332 per annum. Then the 1952 hardship scheme came along, and here this officer receives an additional £26 per annum, making his pension to-day £358 per annum. That is an increase of nearly 20 per cent. on the maximum 1919 rates, and of over 30 per cent. on the stabilised rate of 1935. Let me give your Lordships one other account, of a married officer of the rank of captain, over sixty years of age, who, let us say, has £200 a year of his own. He received the pension of £272 per annum at the stabilised rate in 1935. He now receives a 10 per cent. increase under the 1944 and 1947 schemes, which gives him £299 per annum. But, in addition, he will receive under the 1952 scheme, with its higher income limits, a further sum of £26, giving him a total pension to-day of £325 per annum. That is an increase of 20 per cent. on the 1935 stabilised rate, and an 8 per cent. increase on the 1919 rate. I could go on for a long time quoting these cases to your Lordships. Officers with smaller pensions and with little or no private means have got even higher percentage increases than the captains whose cases I have quoted.
  From time to time allegations have been made that retired officers knew nothing of the decision of 1932 and were not even notified of it. A notice was prepared in similar terms to an Army Council Instruction, and it was sent in October and November, 1932, with pension vouchers, to all retired officers. If those officers received the pension vouchers, then they also received the notice. Some 11,000 copies were printed and dispatched to Army officers; over 7,000 were sent to officers of the Royal Navy, and some 600 were dispatched to the Royal Air Force. Officers must have known and appreciated the effect of the decision which was reached in 1932. I have no doubt that all retired officers received this circular, in precisely the same way in which they received a circular at a later date informing them of the successive hardship schemes under

  359
  which they were entitled to apply. They read that circular, because one in five have, in fact, asked for an increase under the hardship scheme.
  So far as my research has gone—and I have endeavoured to go into this matter in great detail it appears that the Government's decision to stabilise pensions was not resented. Indeed, I believe, with respect to my noble and gallant friend, that the sliding scale was just as unpopular with pensions as it was with pay, and possibly many officers who had incurred commitments required to know what their permanent pensions would be. I make that point for this reason: that I can find no record whatever of any discussion or question at that time in Parliament, the one place where it would have been appropriate for complaints to aired. Let me remind noble Lords again that the decision to stabilise pensions was made at a time when the cost of living was still falling. I ask myself, and I ask your Lordships, what foundation is there for the complaint that this was a cunning and sly move by a parsimonious and far-sighted Treasury to freeze pensions when the cost of living began to rise in 1935? In fact, like all other important decisions, this one was made by the Government of the day, and not by a Department.
  It is, as I think noble Lords are well aware, a fundamental principle of public service pensions that they are based on length of service and pay or rank on retirement, and that once they have been awarded they are not normally changed in the light of events after retirement. There have, however, been two grounds for exceptions which Governments, including the late Government of which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was a member, have recognised. The first was on grounds of hardship and applies to officers retiring under all past codes. The second recognised the officers affected by stabilisation in 1932 and 1935 as an exceptional class for whom, as things have turned out, some special action might be justified.
  The first exception, that on grounds of hardship, gave to those too old or unfit to earn a livelihood, and whose total incomes were limited, a measure of assistance by means of an addition to their basic pension and, as will be seen from paragraph 40 of the White Paper, this
  360
  was not ungenerous. The second, to meet a feeling of injustice arising from the fact that many were receiving pensions at rates lower than had at one time been in force, gave to all those officers with small pensions and who retired under the 1919 Code assistance of up to 10 per cent. on their stabilised pensions. In 1954, this additional 10 per cent. increase, which was previously given only on pensions of up to £400 a year, was given to all officers who had not previously received it. As was said by my noble and gallant friend, that virtually restored the 1919 Code of pensions. Her Majesty's Government then hoped that the sense of injustice which these officers had rightly or wrongly felt would have been removed, once and for all. But this was not to be. Although, as I have said, no demand was made for restoration until some years after the stabilisation plan had operated, the noble and gallant Lord now asks once again that all the provisions of the defunct and unique code of 1919 should be restored in full.
  One of the points made today, and which is frequently made, is that it would not cost a large sum of money. Surely, this argument is based on a false assumption, for could special treatment merely be limited to former officers of the Armed Forces? Even if Her Majesty's Government should feel able to meet this request, my noble and gallant friend would still be dissatisfied, for the Society of which he is President has now demanded that retired pay for all officers who retired before September 1, 1950, should be raised to current rates.
  LORD JEFFREYS: May I remind my noble friend that that is not part of my argument, and that is not part of my Motion at all?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think it is only fair that I should draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that whenever an improvement has been made by Her Majesty's Government to give retired officers an increase in their basic pensions, or to restore a 10 per cent. cut of former years, they have invariably asked for additions. I should like to continue this argument, because it is relevant. My noble and gallant friend will realise, as well as anyone else, that the qualifying rules and regulations, as well as the rates for pensions in force to-day, have all been changed. The

  361
  minimum period of service for retired pay to-day is twenty years, and any officer who retired under the 1919 code with less than twenty years' service would cease to draw any pension whatsoever if he were re-assessed on the post-war code. Some 3,500 retired officers would then be struck off retired pay completely. Does that really represent a solution to this problem? Both the exceptions which I have mentioned earlier have rightly been made to meet special circumstances, but it would be fundamentally wrong to vary the whole structure of pensions after they had been awarded. I venture to think that neither this nor any other Government could agree to this suggestion. In point of fact, the late Labour Government did not agree to it either. It was, indeed, the conclusion that such variation was not merely unsatisfactory, but was also wrong, that led to its withdrawal after the experience gained between 1919 and 1932.
  I hope that noble Lords will have read the White Paper with the care and attention it deserves. Your Lordships will have observed that there are two matters of some importance which emerge from that document. First, it will be noted that every Government since 1920—and they were Governments of vastly different political persuasions—has followed exactly the same policy in not giving assistance to all public service pensioners irrespective of need, but, in fact, giving it instead where it was most needed to relieve real hardship. That is the first point. The second point is this. In the lifetime of each Government since 1944 a new pensions increase scheme affecting officers' pensions has in fact been introduced. Successive Governments have, therefore, kept under review the needs of retired officers, and measures to relieve real hardship were introduced in 1944, 1947 and again in 1952. Furthermore, it is worth remembering—and I do not apologise in any way for bringing this to your Lordships' attention again—that retired officers are not the only people living on fixed incomes. There are a large number of people in this country living on such incomes, fixed at a time when money was worth more than it is to-day, people for whom little can be done by way of direct assistance. The fact that retired officers, as distinct from this great mass of the fixed income groups, have been singled
  362
  out for a pensions increase should never be forgotten. But to expand it further would mean asking many others with limited incomes to shoulder further burdens for the benefit of these retired officers.
  LORD JEFFREYS: May I, once again, interrupt my noble friend? Possibly he forgets that those other people with limited incomes, of whom he speaks, have not been promised, as were the retired officers under the Warrant of 1919, that their incomes would rise, as well as fall, with the cost of living.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I do not want to weary the House with deploying my arguments all over again, but my noble and gallant friend will realise, first, that the 1919 Code sliding scale does not now exist; secondly, that the basic pension for all officers under the 1919 Code has, in fact, been restored; and that that has all been done in the lifetime of the late Government and the present Government as well.
  The best and surest method to assist all those people who are living on fixed incomes, whether they are retired officers or others, is to maintain sound financial and economic policies so as to achieve stability in the value of money. It is perhaps some measure of the Government's success that the cost of living has risen by little more than 5 per cent. since the last "hardship" increase for retired officers was put into effect nearly three years ago. Here let me reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to remind him that the rise in the index of retail figures from June, 1947, to October, 1951, was 29 per cent. From October, 1951, to February, 1955, the rise has been 13 per cent. Let me also remind the noble Lord, in passing, that the last measure of any sort which was given for officers who were already retired was given by the former Administration under the Warrant of 1947. Her Majesty's present Government gave something in 1952 and they have given something else in 1954.
  I turn now to deal with the Amendment which stands in my name. I do not want to repeat any of the observations I made at the beginning of my remarks. My Amendment falls into two parts. First, it asks the House to recognise the action taken by Her Majesty's Government last year in restoring to all officers who had not previously received it an

  363
  increase of 10 per cent. on their stabilised pensions. This action virtually restored the deduction of 9½ per cent. at which final consolidation took place in 1935; and, in fact, it meets my noble and gallant friend's long-standing request. Secondly, the Amendment asks the House to note the "additional assistance made available to retired officers of limited means under the pensions increase scheme of 1952." That scheme concentrated on giving relief on grounds of hardship and where it was most required. That seems to me to be a most desirable object. Broadly speaking, it gives to retired officers over sixty years of age, or who are incapacitated, and who have retired under all Codes an addition to their pensions where their incomes do not exceed £654 a year, if they are married, or £529 a year, if they are single. Noble Lords will probably know that this 1952 scheme, although an entirely separate measure, operates in addition to the 1944, 1947 and 1954 schemes. Finally, my Amendment asks the House to resolve that Her Majesty's Government should continue to keep under review the needs of officers who have retired from the three Services and draw pensions under old codes.
  I humbly apologise for delaying the House for so long, but the whole subject is of importance and deserves a reply befitting the occasion. I have tried to set before your Lordships all the stark facts, however unpalatable they may be; but it does not alter one iota my feelings of sympathy, gratitude and respect towards these men who have stood their country in good stead. It is well that my noble and gallant friend, and others who will take part in this debate, should know that Her Majesty's Government do not intend, nor have they ever intended, to break faith with any retired officer. The help and assistance which we have given them during the last three years has done much to relieve hardship. It is clear proof that we have been vigilant and watchful in their interests. It is our intention to continue to treat them in a fair and equitable way. That, indeed, is the purpose of my Amendment. I fully recognise my noble and gallant friend's feelings towards these retired officers, and I also appreciate the reasons which prompted him to move his Motion. I trust that he will accept my reply and my Amend
  364
  ment in the same spirit as that in which I have taken his words. I beg to move.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down may I have an answer to my question? I asked a very simple question: whether such measures as have been introduced since the 1919 Code came into operation have not, in effect, been detrimental to those officers who would have benefited had the 1919 Code continued. It is a simple question.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I tried to compose my long observations to deal with the whole question of the 1919 Code and to reply by that method to the question which my noble friend asked me. If he has heard and appreciated the observations I have made, he will have seen that the 9½ per cent. cut in the 1919 Code has, in fact, been virtually restored. The 20 per cent. variation in an upward or downward trend in the cost of living has not been renewed, but there has taken place this variety of Warrants dealing with increases in pensions, hardship schemes of one sort or another, to all of which I have referred. As I have said, in every case the position of the officer retired under the stabilised Code of 1935 has certainly been improved since that date.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I am most unwilling to ask any questions now, but there is one point that I must ask the noble Earl to make clear. He speaks as if, by this increase of 10 per cent., the 1919 scheme had been established, with its rates, and as if it had not varied. But is it not the case that during all the years between 1935 and 1954, when the 10 per cent. came back—or, at any rate, during all the later part of the time—people were receiving lower pensions than they would have received had there been no provision for adjusting pensions to cost of living?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If I understand the noble Lord correctly, what he is saying is this: that if the 1919 Code had remained in full operation and had not been stabilised in 1935, then from 1935 till 1952 officers drawing pay under the 1919 Code would have been better off during part at least of that period of time because they had this 20 per cent. fluctuation in the upward or downward trend in the cost of living. The answer to that is certainly in the affirmative.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: How did it restore the 1919 provision?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I went to some considerable length to try to explain to the House that the 1919 Code sliding scale was abolished in 1935. Therefore, what my noble friend is asking the House to do is to ask the Government to implement a provision of a Code which is no longer in existence. That provision was superseded by the one of 1935, when pensions were stabilised; and from that date, the pensions paid to officers were paid on the new stabilised Code. But I repeat, because I think that the noble Lord cannot have heard me, that there was no complaint whatever about the variation in the cost of living from 1932 until 1935 or 1936. It was only some time after the cost of living started to move in an upward direction that various vocal complaints were made about the new stabilised code.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out all the words after "That," and insert "this House, recognising the action taken in the matter of the retired pay of officers by Her Majesty's Government in March 1954, to ensure to all officers in receipt of retired pay at the consolidated rates introduced in 1935 an increase of 10 per cent.; and noting the additional assistance made available to retired officers of limited means under the Pensions Increase Scheme of 1952; resolves that Her Majesty's Government should continue to keep under review the needs of these officers."—(The Earl of Munster.)
  5.13 p.m.
  LORD KINDERSLEY: My Lords, in rising to support the Motion, I do so in considerable trepidation, particularly after listening to the eloquent speeches which we have heard this afternoon. I also crave your Lordships' indulgence for one who is speaking for the first time in your Lordships' House. I believe that it is right to declare an interest, even though remote, and therefore I say that I myself draw a disability pension. That, I think, has no connection with the subject we are discussing to-day. I have a son-in-law who is a serving officer in Her Majesty's Regular Army and who is no doubt looking forward to the day when he will retire and draw a pension. I should also tell your Lordships that I am
  366
  chairman of the Officers' Association, a position I have occupied for the past nine years. It has been my duty to urge the Officers' Association to try to put right these grievances. Your Lordships will remember that that Association was formed in 1921 by the late Field Marshal Earl Haig, with the idea of fostering and taking care of the interests of ex-officers of all three Services, their wives, their widows, their children and their dependants.
  We must remember that ex-officers have no trade unions for collective bargaining; nor have they an appeal to the courts in matters concerning pensions: they rely entirely on fair treatment and a square deal from the State. I believe that all your Lordships will agree with me that there is a considerable element of doubt whether the officers who come under the 1919 Code have received a perfectly square deal and the fair treatment which they are entitled to expect from the State. Had they been given, in 1935, an option to continue on the sliding scale or to accept stabilisation, that would have been an entirely different matter: they could have made their own free choice and they then would have suffered the consequences willingly. But no; they were faced with a fait accompli, without a "By-your-leave." In my opinion, it was a unilateral and an arbitrary decision which broke the contract made with those officers in 1919.
  I now wish to examine this question, of stabilisation and its implementation. Stabilisation of these pensions was decided on in 1932, but it is significant that it was not implemented until 1935. Let us examine what happened during that period, in particular, to the cost of living. In 1932 the cost of living was still falling; it continued to do so through 1933, when, it hit bottom, and in 1934 we saw the curve start upwards for the first time. That curve continued upwards through 1935 and, one might say, at accelerated pace from 1935 onwards.
  Now I want to give your Lordships a small summary from the Survey of International Affairs for 1938, Volume 3, under the chapter entitled "The Rise in German Air Power." From that we find that during the debate on the British Air Estimates in 1933, Sir Winston Churchill referred to Germany's growing air power. In March, 1934, he returned to the subject, arguing that parity of air power was

  367
  required. On July 30, 1934, Sir Winston Churchill stated that Germany's air power was then two-thirds that of the United Kingdom; that in 1935 it would be larger than that of the United Kingdom; and that in 1937 it would be twice as large. In March, 1935, when Sir John Simon (as he then was) visited Berlin, Hitler boasted that Germany had parity of air power with Britain. On May 22, 1935, the Secretary of State for Air announced that the Royal Air Force would be increased by the spring of 1937 by no fewer than 72 squadrons of first-line aircraft. That period saw the revival of the Luftwaffe under Hitler and Goering becoming apparent for the first time, and our own Royal Air Force being pressed to expand. I maintain that it must have been abundantly clear to the authorities at that date in 1935 that we, as a country, would be committed to large rearmament programme, with the consequent effects that that programme must have on the cost of living level. Yet that was the moment chosen to implement the stabilisation which destroyed the safeguard of those pensioners against a rise in the cost of living. Surely that was not the fair treatment which these pensioners were entitled to expect.
  In July, 1952, the Minister of Defence, the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, received a joint Parliamentary deputation on this question of Service pensions. In November, the noble and gallant Earl stated in your Lordships' House, in so many words, that in the then economic and financial position of the country the financial commitments involved by the pensions requests could not be undertaken. At that time the country's finances were at a very low ebb, and I could not help sympathising with the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. Since then, however, there has been a continuous improvement in the financial and other conditions of this country—so much so, indeed, that we find the Chancellor of the Exchequer faced to-day with what might be referred to as an embarrassingly large surplus of no less than £433 million. So poverty can no longer be claimed as the excuse for failure to meet these obligations.
  We have heard that the total cost of restoring the 20 per cent. sliding scale would be less than £1 million a year—
  368
  less than one four-hundredth of the budgetary surplus, or one four-thousandth of the total out-turn of the 1954–55 Budget. I do not want to dwell on the reinstatement of the 10 per cent. cut, but I feel that it was a great pity that, instead of basing the increase on the net reduced pension, pensions were not fully restored to the rates under the 1919 Code. It looked as though some sinister figure was trying to chisel off ½ per cent. and appear very magnanimous at the same time. In fact, it took the gilt off the gingerbread of what otherwise would have been received as a very generous offer and only added fuel to the fires of bitterness which were already burning. Perhaps I am being somewhat more out-spoken than is customary for one who is speaking for the first time in your Lordships' House, but I feel most strongly on this subject.
  I feel that I must tell you of my conviction, from my contacts with pensioners, serving officers and the younger generation, of the infinite harm and disastrous effects of leaving State obligations unfulfilled. Pensioners say, "How can I encourage my son or my grandson to join the Services after the shabby treatment I have received at the hands of the State?" The younger generation, seeing that shabby treatment, say, "What inducement is there for me to follow in my father's footsteps?" The result is the loss of some of the finest officer material in this country, born and bred in the highest traditions of all three Services, which we can ill-afford to lose to-day—and all for a paltry sum which, I submit, is a debt that the State has failed to honour.
  I will not keep your Lordships much longer, but I should like to refer to the statement made by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, on January 20, 1953, when he said in your Lord ships' House [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 179, col. 1137]:
  "I have attempted to show the serious repercussions which would or could follow from any measure to grant to these officers the rates of retired pay now current for present members of the Forces. I can, however, assure your Lordships that the case put so cogently in this House this afternoon will be most earnestly considered by Her Majesty's Government. I can also assure your Lordships that the whole question of retired officers' pay and pensions will be kept constantly under review and examination, and if and when it becomes possible to assist them financially, they may rest assured that they will not be forgotten."

  369
  Surely the moment has arrived when that assurance, if it meant anything at all, can and should be carried out.
  5.25 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am delighted to be the first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Kindersley on his maiden speech in this House. I think none of your Lordships will quarrel with him for having put the case for this Motion so bluntly and so clearly. We all know that he has given a great deal of his time and care to ex-Service affairs, and in his speech he has shown his knowledge not merely of the details but also of the angle from which ex-Service people approach this problem. Noble Lords will welcome him here and will hope to hear him on many future occasions, not only on matters connected with Service and ex-Service affairs but also as his father's successor in the team of noble bankers to whom we have listened on so many occasions with so much profit. I had in mind to declare an interest because, until my noble friend Lord Munster sat down, I was firmly under the impression that I derived my rights to Army retired pay from the Royal Warrant of 1919. Now the noble Earl tells me that that is not so; so I suppose that I need declare no interest, and can say that my rights to an Army pension must be based on the Royal Warrant of 1946, which we are not discussing this afternoon.
  This subject is a very difficult and thorny one, for a number of reasons, the first (and not least) being that, since we are discussing Royal Warrants, the Royal Prerogative is involved. Secondly, none of us is this afternoon complaining that Her Majesty's present Government have created the situation which we dislike; that was done by Governments long ago —in 1919 if you like; in 1931 and 1915. We are saying that the time has come to put an end to this state of affairs because it has in several directions a nuisance value quite out of proportion to the amount of money involved, as the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley said, or to the number of people involved. For in practice, leaving out the old people of the pre-1919 Warrant, I imagine that most of those who began to receive retired pay under the 1919 Warrant were, in fact, re-employed in the Second World War and therefore their entitlement to pension
  370
  has improved. That is not the real point, as I shall try to show your Lordships.
  There is another disadvantage about these frequent debates on officers' pensions: they might possibly give the impression, to those who have no detailed knowledge of the facts, that noble Lords, and perhaps other people, are more concerned with the affairs of ex-officers than with the affairs of former other ranks. It would be most misleading if that idea were entertained anywhere. As we all know, the fact is that the 1919 arrangements for pensions of ex-officers did include a special provision, namely, the sliding scale. That sliding scale, which was confined to the Warrant we are now discussing, is the cause of all the arguments that we have had since then; and this particular Royal Warrant and the cause of the relatively small number of officers concerned have become the battleground of opposing forces—forces which are opposing each other on principle. And, as my noble friend Lord Kindersley and other noble Lords have said, it is with principles that we are concerned this afternoon.
  If the matter could have been settled by the detailed arguments to which we listened from the noble Earl, Lord Munster, I am sure that he would have convinced us all—or very nearly so. But to my mind the whole matter does not work quite that way. The facts of the case have been described by many people in many debates. They are that in 1919 a Royal Warrant was issued linking Service retired pay to the ascertained cost of living; that in 1935 other provisions were made by which that link with the cost of living was abolished, and that ever since then people have been saying that that act in 1935—or 1931, or whenever it was—constituted a breach of faith with the officers concerned.
  A certain number of arguments have been advanced to the effect that it was not a breach of faith. Nevertheless, I do not think that any Government—either the present Government or any other—have yet been able to convince the people concerned that it was not a breach of faith; or that if, by chance, it was not, at any rate the Government of the day which took the step were not sailing far closer to the wind than they ever should have done when dealing with a body of people like ex-Service officers who have no

  371
  representative body fighting their battles, which represents them in arguments with, let us say, their employers on occasions like these. We hear now that at the time it was thought that the arrangements which were made were not unpopular or were not inequitable. I hate these double negatives: they sound "phoney" to me, and in this particular case they always have done.
  What I think is most important is that those who claim that an arrangement is satisfactory to the people affected, must have a care, seeing that there is no representative body, or negotiating body, which can speak for the people concerned. In dealing with N.A.L.G.O., or the Civil Service Clerical Association, or a dispute between trade unions and employing bodies, you are quite entitled, if you reach a settlement, to say that it is satisfactory, simply on the ground that it has been accepted by those people who were charged with the duty of representing employers and employed. But everyone knows that there is no such body representing these officers. It is also agreed, I think, by everyone that it would be a most undesirable thing if such a body were to exist. Therefore, I feel quite certain that, if there is a doubt whether there was bad faith in the past, the right thing now, whatever anyone else has done before, is to see that the causes for supposing there may have been bad faith are removed, and removed beyond all doubt and peradventure.
  To come back to one of the main difficulties of this particular subject, I have always fancied that one of the reasons why such hard fights were made by successive Governments and their advisers against any changes in these arrangements was because of the idea that, if they made changes, they might have repercussions which would result in attempts to apply sliding scales connected with the cost of living to other sets of people. We have heard a good deal about the question of the cost of living, and we have heard a good deal of argument about the purposes of a pension. Whatever may be thought in Government Departments, I suppose that most people imagine that if a man has served his full time in one of the Services and has then retired—I am not talking a bout people who retired early—he can expect that his retired pay will be such as will enable him to live a modest
  372
  existence for the rest of his time. Of course, there is a school of thought which will always say that, in these days of the Welfare State, if anyone cannot keep body and soul together, the Assistance Board should come along and make up his income. I do not think that that idea, applied to ex-Service people, would appeal to many noble Lords in this House.
  We have also been told by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, that there is the hardship warrant which enables people to come back and prove hardship. Surely, taking the case broadly, one must suppose that when the cost of living moves very much out of line with people's pensions, something must be done every now and then to put pensions back into line with the cost of living. To take an extreme case, I wonder what would happen if the 1914 pound, if you like, became worth only sixpence, or like the French franc, instead of being worth six shillings? Should we allow pensions to remain at the original nominal sums and put everyone on to the Assistance Board? I do not know, and perhaps I am out of order in talking about that now. But I feel that we should not accept the argument that the retired pay of an officer who served his full time should bear no relation to what it costs to enable him to live and to keep body and soul together.
  Equally, I am bound to say that it does not surprise me that, in the light of the experience they have now, Treasury spokesmen should say that the linking of the 1919 Warrant not merely to the general cost of living but to the ascertained Ministry of Labour Index was an unwise thing—perhaps it was not at the time; otherwise, as Lord Jeffreys has said, Mr. Churchill (as he then then was) would not have done it. Since then, we have had other experiences. I think anyone who knows anything about the Australian scene will realise the damaging effects that have resulted in Australia from linking the basic wage to the basic costs, and how necessary it became for an alteration to be made.
  However that may be, I am making this point simply because I am most anxious—as, indeed, I suppose many noble Lords are—to see a settlement made. And I believe that in practice one of the straightest roads to making a

  373
  settlement will be to get rid of the whole of the 1919 Warrant or its after-effects. Even if I accept Lord Munster's argument that the 1919 Warrant is dead, I suppose he will agree with me that the evil which Warrants do lives after them even if the good is interred with their bones. But we shall see. As I say, I hope very much that my noble friends in front of me will be able to make some arrangement which, while it avoids any serious repercussions (I do not mean imaginary repercussions in respect of other classes of pensioners), will, at any rate, do away with this longstanding grievance.
  But if there is no wrong—and I think there is—certainly the present situation has the same effects as a wrong would have among people whom we all know (though perhaps "some of us say it as shouldn't") to be a most deserving class of the community. It really does not matter whether the brief says a wrong is or is not there. People think it is there. Therefore, I submit that the right thing to do is to remove it beyond all doubt; and I suggest that the right way to do it is to clean up the after-effects of all those Warrants and to put the few people still affected, those whose pensions have not been bettered by these Warrants, on the 1946 Warrant or, better still, on the 1951 Warrant. If we are told that that is a difficult task, all I can say is that it cannot be beyond the ingenuity of the advisers who gave the noble Earl his brief. I make that plea as seriously as I can, in the hope that we shall not go too closely into the rights and wrongs of this case, but really make up our minds that, if justice does not appear to be done, it is high time that it should be made to appear so, even if this Government have to repair the defects of Governments of the past.
  5.41 p.m.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, many of the facts, figures and arguments that I was going to use have already been used by noble Lords who have spoken before me far more eloquently than I am likely to be able to do. Therefore, I am going to dwell on only one point, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, in an excellent, well argued and forceful maiden speech upon which I should like
  374
  to join the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in congratulating the noble Lord. The subject is recruitment. All this argument about pensions is very fine, but the fact of the matter is that this misunderstanding on the subject of pensions, the inequalities in pensions and the way in which older officers feel that they have been badly treated is fast drying up the fountain of recruit officers who should be coming into the Services and are now going into industry. The Services are becoming more and more technical, and therefore they have to compete more and more with industry in obtaining young men of character and intelligence. The actual pay which officers get cannot be compared in any way with the pay that individuals, if they have any intelligence at all, can obtain in civil life.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, pensions are part of emoluments. The amount of money which an officer would have to put by every year in his Service life in order to produce the pension which he receives nowadays if, for example, he is at lieutenant-colonel level, would be £800 to £1,000. That is a considerable figure and makes an officer's emoluments up to something like the level of civil industry. But if his pension is not going to keep level with the purchasing power of the pound, and as these retired officers grow older and by their increasing age become less able to obtain employment to bolster up their pensions, then I submit that the carrot of a pension which is held out in front of the nose of a prospective officer will cease to be a carrot at all. We need officers in the Services, and I submit to the Government that everything must be done to make officers feel that right up to the last day they live they will be treated properly by the Government in thankfulness for the services which they have given to the country.
  5.46 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I rise to support the motion of my noble and gallant friend, Lord Jeffreys. He is a difficult man to follow, and we have had a long debate and everything has been said so often that it is rather wearisome to have to repeat it. As regards the Amendment that has been pitchforked in, as I listened to the speech of the noble Earl and noted his oratory and the way he kept it up and warned

  375
  and admonished people right and left with his finger, I was astonished; but I could not help thinking that two-thirds of his speech had nothing to do with the point raised in my noble friend's Motion. I was much amused because when the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, rose and mentioned Civil Service pensions, he was called to order by the noble Earl, who afterwards in his own speech drifted away to refer to other people who were living on fixed incomes, which has nothing on earth to do with the Motion. I ask the House not to be led away by the noble Earl's idea of the value of the concessions made since the pensions were stabilised. Under the Pensions Act of 1952 an elderly single officer drawing £425 retired pay gross gets an additional £20 per annum—that is to say, if he has not accepted work which brings him in over £2 a week. That is not a big figure nowadays. Twenty pounds extra, provided an officer is not making more on his own than £2 a week, makes him worse off than a pensioner under the National Insurance Scheme, because he has to declare everything he has got and there is no means test for old age pensioners.
  As for the sentence in the Amendment which reads:
  "that Her Majesty's Government should continue to keep under review the needs of these officers"
  I would say that if the Government think that that will be any comfort to officers and their friends, they are certainly mistaken. What it will do is to increase their exasperation. It seems rather an extraordinary thing that a Minister should rise from the Front Bench and exhort his colleagues to do their duty in looking after pensioners. Undoubtedly that is their duty. It sounded rather like Mr. Malenkov making his public confession before he was liquidated. I sincerely trust that the noble Earl is not going to be liquidated because, in spite of the arguments he has put forward, I have a great liking for him. The noble Earl's reply has been no better than the one given in answer to the Question my noble friend, Lord Jeffreys, asked some time ago, and gives no more satisfaction. On the last occasion, as the noble Earl will remember, we were promised that these things would be seen to, and that when the Government were in a position to do something, something would be done,
  376
  et cetera, and that this matter would be given high priority. That was eighteen months ago, and what has happened since then?—absolutely nothing.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Oh, yes, there has.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: No.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Indeed, there has. I must interrupt the noble and gallant Earl. Of course, a great deal has happened since eighteen months ago. I feel that that is the trouble with many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate: they have not ascertained what has occurred. If the noble and gallant Earl had paid me the honour of listening to my speech with which I wearied the House for far too long, he would have realised what has happened.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I did listen to the speech of the noble Earl, or at least as much of it as I could assimilate at the time. I come back to the fact that the whole point of the Motion of my noble and gallant friend is the 1919 agreement and what has happened to it. I want to call the attention of your Lordships to two previous debates, one on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, in June, 1953, and another on the Motion of my noble and gallant friend, Lord Jeffreys, in December, 1953. The noble Lord, Lord Schuster, made two telling speeches in those debates. He arrived at the conclusion that a definite promise had been given by the Government to the officers concerned and that that promise had been broken. He went on to say [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 185, col. 100]:
  "I do not stop to argue whether that constituted a contract. It constituted, to my mind, and to the mind of every person who has lived long years in the Civil Service, something much higher than a contract—namely, a pledge of public faith."
  The late Lord Simon also spoke in that debate, and he said [col. 103]:
  "I have listened throughout this debate with increasing anxiety. … I find myself in complete agreement with what was said just now by Lord Schuster. The issue is whether, in the Government of this country, we are going to observe public faith."
  He went on to say that, in his opinion, in a question of public faith legal considerations matter nothing. He wound up by saying, in reference to the argument put forward by the Government, that if

  377
  they were to give these pensions they would open the door to a flood of other applications for increased pensions:
  "This argument, I say, is no answer and every honest man knows that it is no answer."
  So we get a distinguished civil servant and a great lawyer coming to the conclusion that a breach of public faith has been committed. I have quoted from those two speeches, because neither of the persons who made them could be accused of being biased towards the Armed Forces, but were men who had had a wide experience of public affairs. That was their considered opinion.
  In answer to a representation on this subject by letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary replied:
  "It is a fundamental principle of the public service pensions that they are based on length of service and pay or rank on retirement, and once awarded they are not normally variable in the light of events after retirement."
  "Normally" as compared to what? When the pensions in 1919 were introduced, what were the conditions? We should look back, because they were abnormal conditions at that time. We had just finished a "war to end war." The League of Nations was coming into being, the Kellogg Pact and others were in gestation and were going to ensure the peace of the world. Our men were told that they were coming back to "a land fit for heroes to live in," and we were going to get a large indemnity from Germany—Germany was to be "squeezed till the pips squeak," in the elegant expression of the statesmen of that day. We were looking forward then to "a vista of peace and plenty." It was then that the 1919 Code of Pensions came into being.
  In the early 'thirties things were not looking so well, and the most confirmed optimists were coming to believe that it was possible that we had not arrived at a period of perpetual peace. We then had to face a rise in the cost of living and a great rearmament scheme, which always involves financial difficulties. Although these pensions were not to be revised except under the rule, this appeared to have been a sufficient abnormality to authorise a departure from what is called the "fundamental principle", to reexamine the 1919 Pension Code, not, it will be observed, in the interests of the
  378
  pensioners, but in order to save some few hundred thousand pounds and to dissociate officers' pensions from the cost of living. That, I think, is a fact which even the noble Earl, Lord Munster, cannot dispute.
  Now, in 1955, ten years after the end of the Second World War, we find ourselves in an entirely different atmosphere. We have had the admission of the noble Earl that officers who lived through all those years without what they ought to have had—namely, the increase of pension owing to the 20 per cent. cost of living increase—would have been a lot better off if they had had it: and all those years they had to face without it were bitter and hard years. I apologise for my rather disjointed remarks, but I have cut most of the gems out of my speech in order to shorten it and not to keep your Lordships too long. I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment and to accept the Motion of my noble and gallant friend Lord Jeffreys, and thus re-establish the reputation of this House as being the protector of State servants and of justice in dealing with them.
  5.53 p.m.
  LORD FREYBERG: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the Motion of my noble and gallant friend Lord Jeffreys. Until I heard some of the arguments this afternoon, I should have disclaimed any personal interest in this matter, because I did not believe that I was affected in any way whatsoever by the Royal Warrant of 1919. But I must say that, having heard the debate to-day, I wonder whether anybody understands what the Royal Warrant of 1919 is. Thanks to my noble and gallant friend Lord Jeffreys, to the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, and other Members of your Lordships' House, and also to a large number of Members in another place, this subject is fairly well known throughout the country. The problem has been well presented, as is shown by the reports of various debates published in Hansard, which have recorded statements made over a period of years. There is no argument that is not fully known and appreciated by Members of your Lordships' House, and I do not want to weary your Lordships by repeating any of the old ones; I want merely to make two observations, and to leave it at that.

  379
  The problem I wish to speak of is one of which I know from my own personal experience. I have not seen mentioned anywhere the fact that at the end of the First World War a most difficult situation had arisen. The Services had expanded tenfold—and in the case of the Army even more than that; officers and Regular non-commissioned officers, and even men, had been given Regular commissions and had risen in time of war to positions that they could not have hoped to reach in peace. When peace came, the Army had to be reduced to peace-time dimensions, and this caused untold hardship. Speaking of my own Service, the Army, it was a common thing to find an officer who in war time had risen from the ranks, by merit, to the temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel having to revert to the rank of substantive lieutenant, dropping four grades and losing thereby the pay and possibilities of pension for himself or his widow, should she survive him.
  It was a distressing problem, but there was an even more difficult one, because the older members of the Regular Army, if they stayed on, would block all promotion for these young men who had been trained during active hostilities. It became necessary, immediately after the war, to clear the ranks of the higher grade officers to make room for the promotion of these younger men. I can remember that special provision was made for these people in the way of attractive conditions of retirement, so that they could leave and have some security, in after-life. One of the principal provisions made was that pensions should go up in the event of the cost of living going up. Of course, it was an understood quid pro quo that they should go down if the cost of living went down.
  I listened with great interest to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, and I was particularly interested in one thing he said. He said that the Government of 1932 passed a certain measure, and that we thought they were a parsimonious Government, whereas he thought well of the Government and considered that they acted generously. I ask your Lordships to consider the situation in 1931 and 1932 when pensions were stabilised. I was commanding a battalion at Shorncliffe, and that "generous" Government were recruiting unemployed men into the Army
  380
  at 2s. a day, and carrying that penal regulation that anybody married "off the strength"—that was, under the age of twenty-six—would not receive marriage allowance or children's allowance. I do not think your Lordships realise many of the things that happened in the Army in that year. I had ten men who came from Lancashire. They each had one railway ticket given them by the Government, and each had to pay the fares for his wife and child; and their effects they brought down by train. They had to live on 14s. a week and a ration which was valued at 9¼d. a day. I can remember men who were married "off the strength" fainting on parade because they had had no breakfast. Then came the cuts that led to the incident in the Navy. I was doing an administrative staff job in Salisbury, and I was asked to investigate what would be the feelings of the men who were on higher pay if we cut them to 2s. a day. When we worked it out, it was cutting their pay by 28·8 per cent., when everybody else was being cut 10 per cent.
  I know that there is an argument that at that time we could not afford to pay higher rates of pay. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, however, to an article that appeared in the Economist this week—quoting from an article of March 31, 1855, dealing with the question of abolishing the purchase of commissions in the Army. It was headed, "Can we afford not to?" The article is interesting, because it said in its first paragraph:
  "You must raise your rate of payment considerably; you must make up your mind to a vast increase of the retiring pension list. … We are not in the least dismayed by the amount of the annual sum which it would cost us to get back into a better system. We know the temper of the House of Commons—how lavish it is on some occasions; how niggardly it is on others; but we have never known it refuse to sanction a vote which the public service really required, or which was needed to meet the claims of clear justice and good sense. … If, at the recommendation of Parliament, we were to revise the system of purchase, we are confident that Parliament would never demur to the expenses entailed upon the country by carrying out that recommendation. To suppose the contrary is an insult to its good feeling and good sense … if you want a good article, you must pay for it—in some form or another. The country has no right to be served for nothing."
  The article finishes by saying:
  "We can well afford it; we can not afford to grudge it; and it must be incurred."

  381
  I beg to support the Motion standing in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Jeffreys.
  6.7 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Jeffreys, put his case most clearly, and there are not many new arguments that I can put forward. I make no apology for speaking and supporting him to-day, because I feel the subject is of great importance. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said that the pension of an officer is an integral part of his terms of service. Of course that is true. A young officer who joined the Service knew this, and his parents knew it. That was one of the reasons why they advised him to take up a Service career in spite of the disadvantages of a somewhat shorter serving life than is usual in civilian employment. The disadvantage of having to retire perhaps ten years or more before his civilian colleague was outweighed by the certainty of an adequate pension. The officer knew that on retirement he would have a reasonable life. He could take up activities for the benefit of the community, most of them, of course, unpaid. Indeed, we have only to look around the countryside to see what fine work retired officers are doing in many walks of life, on the Bench, and so forth.
  As noble Lords have said, this is not a political question, but I would remind noble Lords on this side of the House how many of our staunch supporters—chairmen of Conservative associations, and so forth—are the very officers we are trying to help today. The noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, in an excellent maiden speech, pointed to the effect that this question was having on young men in regard to taking commissions to-day. If a young man consults his parents, or perhaps an uncle who feels that he has not had a square deal from the country, it must influence him adversely from taking up a Service career. I should like at this point to interject a plea for certain officers who are suffering a special hardship, and one which is more aggravated than that of their colleagues—I refer to those who migrated to Canada after the First World War and who are now suffering from the effects of an adverse exchange rate on their pensions. I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government in
  382
  conjunction with the Canadian Government, could not look once again into the case of these very few officers.
  The noble Earl, Lord Munster, claims that the 1919 Warrant does not exist any more. Nevertheless, in 1919 a promise was made. Why was it made? It was made, quite rightly, because at that time the future was obscure. It was made at the end of a war when officers had suffered great hardships. I think in the case of the Army it would be fair to say that they suffered even greater hardships than they did in the last war. Certainly, the casualties were much greater. It was made in the day of the "Geddes Axe" when, as other speakers have said, many gallant officers who held high rank in the Army had to submit to early and unexpected retirement. Many of them, although not eligible for disability pensions, had their earning capacity impaired by the nervous strain of those years. I feel most strongly that Her Majesty's Government should think of the circumstances in which that 1919 Warrant was made, and should honour its provisions; or, if they cannot honour its provisions completely, they should follow the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and put these officers on to the 1946 Code or one of the later Codes.
  6.12 p.m.
  LORD LECONFIELD: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a moment. The arguments that I was going to use have been adequately expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and by the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley. I support this Motion, and nothing that has been said has caused me to alter my intention. Therefore, I shall not detain your Lordships with any further remarks.
  6.13 p.m.
  LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, with reference to the Amendment, may I, in the first place, join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, on his admirable maiden speech, and express the hope that we shall often hear him, especially in debates on Service matters. I must join issue with my noble friend Lord Munster as regards the abolition of the 1919 Code. If he had served as an officer in the Army for a considerable time, he would know that for an officer who retires under a certain Code, that Code can never be

  383
  abolished; it goes on. For all those officers who retired under the 1919 Code until it was replaced by another Code, there is no question but that it did exist and it still does exist, although it has been replaced for all officers retiring in the future by another, and later, Code.
  I repeat that these Warrants and Codes are entirely different from any form of departmental order. They are, for those who are concerned under them, Royal orders, conveyed by responsible Ministers. They cannot be altered by departmental order. They can be replaced for those who retire later, but that is an entirely different matter. I consider that the stabilisation of which there was a good deal of talk was not legitimate. It was flying in the face of the 1919 Code and of the promise that was made then. Of course, the reductions were legitimate, and were in accordance with the Code, but the stabilisation was not legitimate. When the cost of living varied, effect should have been given to the promise that pensions would rise or fall with the cost of living. Whilst I am on that subject I should like to quote one of the subsequent Warrants, which certainly did not cancel the Warrant of 1919, namely, the Warrant of 1931, making the periodical reduction which at that time was perfectly legitimate. I should like to quote certain words which occur at the foot of that Warrant, because I feel that they are appropriate when we are considering this matter. They are as follows:
  "Except where otherwise provided nothing contained in this Our Warrant shall be held to deprive any officer, soldier or other person who retired from Our Service before the date of this Our Warrant of any pecuniary advantage of which he is already in enjoyment in virtue of such retirement."—
  that is, before the date of 1931. I read that to your Lordships only to show that at that time, at any rate, it was certainly not contemplated that the whole system was to be altered and that officers were in fact going to be deprived of certain benefits which they might have otherwise enjoyed. I would add that under subsequent Codes—at any rate so I am informed; I did not think it myself—officers who retired (for instance, under the Code of 1938) came under the provisions of the 1919 Warrant. I say that merely with reference to the confident assertion of my noble friend Lord Munster
  384
  that that Warrant was completely abolished and had no further effect.
  A good deal of the Amendment has very little to do with my Motion. I would repeat what I have said already in my original speech, namely, that the payment of a 10 per cent. increase on the net rates of payment, which did not even completely restore the 92½ per cent. deduction of 1919, was not an act of generosity which I think it is claimed to be, but was an act of the barest justice to the officers affected. Then, as regards the credit claimed for the
  "additional assistance made available to retired officers under the Pensions Increase Scheme of 1952."
  I would say in the first place that it has nothing to do with my Motion, which deals only with the failure to give effect to the 1919 Code. Next, I would say that the treatment of officers under this Act was far from generous, for, in order to get an increase, it was necessary first, to pass a means test; and secondly, to be over sixty years of age; and the increase given was, to a married man, £26 per annum—depreciated paper pounds—and to a single man, £20 per annum. The same increase was given to other ranks, and whilst £26 per annum was possibly not unreasonable for some of them, it was certainly not over-generous for the officers concerned.
  The only part of the Amendment which has any direct relation to my Motion is the last part, which resolves that Her Majesty's Government should continue to keep under review the needs of these officers. I suppose the phrase "these officers" refers to all officers. As it reads, it refers only to those who received an increase under the pensions increase Scheme of 1952. I presume it is intended to refer to all officers. Assuming that it means the officers who retired under the 1919 Code, what is its value? It commits the Government to absolutely nothing, and it means that the same failure to implement the 1919 Code may go on indefinitely. I believe we have an unanswerable case that a promise was made to these officers. I have explained that it was made by a very responsible Minister, who meant what he said and who did not sign things which he did not believe, and I consider that that promise ought to be given effect to. I still hope that the Government will see

  385
  their way to deal adequately with it. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House is going to give us some hope that something will be done. Failing that, I shall, with very great regret, be obliged to consider dividing the House.
  6.22 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to offer some observations to your Lordships on this subject. If I may go back a little into my earlier life, I was during the First World War a very junior subaltern in a battalion of the Grenadier Guards commanded by the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, and I had for him at that time that awe, compounded of respect and affection, which I think was common to all the officers and men of that battalion. I must confess that, even after so many years have passed, that awe still persists. I should not, in any case, propose to go in great detail over the ground which he has so admirably covered, because the main points which he raised in his speech have already been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Munster, in a speech which I am sure noble Lords will all agree, whether they accepted it or not, was a full account of the position which lee up to where we are now. Indeed, my noble friend has left me very little to say.
  There are, however, just a few considerations which perhaps have not yet been sufficiently emphasised, and which I ought to bring before your Lordships in connection with this debate. The problem of the retired officer is, of course, not a new one to any of us; we have discussed it quite often even during the period that I have been in your Lordships' House, and I think it has never failed to touch all our hearts. This afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, and many others have spoken with sincerity and deep feeling about the difficulties which face these officers at the present time. I would in particular, if I may, instance the speech of my noble friend Lord Kindersley, who made such an admirable entry into our debates. I should not presume, nor should I wish, to dissent from anything those noble Lords have said as to the difficulties and problems with which retired officers are to-day faced. We all know of cases within our own experience which illustrate the troubles that afflict them.
  386
  But I feel it would be only right for me to re-emphasise what has already been said by my noble friend Lord Munster— namely, that there are wider aspects which I think, perhaps naturally, have not been adequately brought into the account this afternoon. They were hardly mentioned by Lord Jeffreys himself and by most of those who followed him, yet I feel it would be wrong if we ignored them.
  First and foremost, I believe that it would be a mistake—indeed, I believe that it would be even wrong—to talk as if this were a problem that affects only retired officers. It is in fact a problem of the widest possible character. The hard truth is, as Lord Beveridge very rightly said, with all his ability, that we live in times when the pound buys less than it used to buy. That is the truth which has been forcibly brought to the notice of successive Governments, of every political colour, since the beginning of the century. This debate is not the occasion to go into the reasons for this: as your Lordships know, they are many and varied.
  In some respects they are not unconnected with the steady rise in the standard of living of the working people of this country, which is in itself such a satisfactory feature of our time. But, of course, this change in the value of money weighs heavily, to a greater or lesser degree, on all those who have fixed incomes, not only on retired officers but on all those, to whatever section of the community they belong, who live on fixed incomes. We all know these people, living perhaps on fixed pensions, as many of them do, or on annuities which they may have purchased, or on small legacies that may have been left to them, which were expected to ensure for them a certain standard of living but now do not. We all know the straits in which these people are put. We know how they have to sell loved homes and to move into smaller ones; how they are unable to give their children the education which they themselves had. We all know the grievous sacrifices that fixed-income people have to make every day of their lives: they are some of the most poignant tragedies of our time.
  It may be said by those who make a differentiation between officers and these other people that, while everything that I

  387
  have said is undoubtedly true, yet the officers are in a different category. But, my Lords, is it in fact possible to draw such a sharp differentiation as some noble Lords seem to do between those who belong to one profession and those who belong to another? Is it possible to argue that if two people were awarded the same pension in 1935, a pension calculated according to the circumstances of that time, one, the officer, should be regarded later as hit harder by the variation in the value of money than the other who did not happen to be an officer? I should have thought that that was an argument with which most of us have sympathy but which could be carried too far.
  I know that I may be told that these officers to whom the Motion relates, and for whose difficulties we all have the deepest sympathy, have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown and have risked their lives in the service of their country. That is, of course, perfectly true. I may be told that for that reason alone they are not to be compared with these other people to whom I have referred. My Lords, I think that would have been a valid argument before the two world wars, but I do not believe that it has quite the same validity now. After all, in these days of total war everyone—except of course those who receive special exemption, who are not a very large number—serves his country.
  We all know innumerable examples, in both world wars, of men in comfortable jobs at home, with heavy commitments in civil life—perhaps with wives and young children for whom they have been unable yet to make proper provision—who have left them all and gone out to fight for their country. Many have been killed; many more have been wounded; and yet more, many of whom are now advanced in years, are, as a result of the changed conditions of our time, in exactly the same position as these retired officers. Many of them have not had the advantage of the assistance which successive Governments have given to officers to enable them to meet difficulties with which they are faced. Whether one regards that assistance as adequate or not, other people have had nothing to meet that position.
  I feel that it is not correct to speak, as do some noble Lords, as if this were a
  388
  problem affecting only retired officers. That suggestion should not be allowed to pass without some answer. If there is any noble Lord who feels that this is not a matter for him, that he is not concerned with these wider issues, which are a matter for Her Majesty's Government, I would reply, with very real deference, that it would not be right for anyone in this House, whoever he might be (and I hope there are no such noble Lords) to adopt such a detached attitude. It may be that some of us in this House, as a result of having spent our lives in a particular branch of public service, may have direct sympathies already strongly engaged in a particular direction. That is very natural and part of the loyalty of the human mind: it is an admirable and estimable quality. But all noble Lords who sit in this House, not only those of us who happen to be members of Her Majesty's Government, are Lords of Parliament. It is our responsibility, whether we sit on the Front or the Back Benches. We have a duty to look at these problems in full perspective and to take into account all these wider considerations which have to be weighed by Her Majesty's Government in coming to their decision.
  We have particularly, in this case, to consider all the ramifications and repercussions which are inseparable from any step which any one Government can take on so thorny a question, considerations which inevitably make the issue an immeasurably wider one than has been suggested by any speaker this afternoon.
  EARL WINTERTON: May I interrupt to ask my noble friend, if we are going to take in wider situation, should not we consider the point that at present one of the greatest difficulties is to obtain serving officers in any of the three Services, a point made by my noble friend?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Lord would allow me to finish my argument it would perhaps be better. I will go on to say that the capacity to face the full facts of the position (and this particular subject is one where this observation is particularly applicable) is, in my own view, the sole justification for our existence here, the sole justification for our claim to be regarded as a Council of State. If we refuse to look at these wider implications we are not doing our job. Yet, whatever may be said by Lord Winterton, these full implications have not

  389
  been faced by the majority of speakers today. There appears to be everywhere a tacit assumption that this issue could be divorced from all others and treated as something completely apart. Yet it cannot be so divorced. I am afraid that there are noble Lords who, either deliberately or—much more likely—subsconciously, have avoided these wider aspects because it does not suit them, in the position they are taking over this particular problem, to look at the hard facts. There are hard facts. I have tried to bring in the wider ramifications but in our heart of hearts we all know the facts to be true.
  In saying this I am not in the least trying to rebut, or even to belittle, the grounds which have been urged today. I am merely attempting to bring to your Lordships' notice how very complicated and difficult this problem is, and to emphasise that it is a problem the full implications of which have to be faced not only by Her Majesty's Government but by every noble Lord. As has, I think, been clearly shown in the Amendment of Her Majesty's Government which it is my duty, with the noble Earl, Lord Munster, to commend to your House, the present Government, like Governments which preceded them, have already taken certain steps designed to alleviate the difficulties of these retired officers. First, we have extended to all officers in receipt of retired pay the increase of 10 per cent. on consolidated rates which we introduced in 1935. Secondly, we have made available the additional assistance to retired officers with limited means under the pensions increase scheme of 1952. The noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, said that it was only paper money, only depreciated money. Well, everything is paper money now, and everything has depreciated. Even had he stuck to the 1919 Warrant the money paid under that would have been exactly the same kind of money as is paid under this scheme.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, said, with the support of other noble Lords, that the Royal Warrant of 1919 could not be abolished—I believe that I am interpreting him correctly.
  LORD JEFFREYS: I said that the Royal Warrant of 1919 could not be abolished for those who retired under its provisions.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I accept that amendment. I think technically the answer is that the noble Lord is quite correct. The Warrant goes on, but it is not inviolable in its terms.
  LORD JEFFREYS: I could not agree there. As my noble friend knows, I was brought up as a Regular soldier, and from my earliest days I have always been told that a Royal Warrant could not be changed for those who came under its provisions. It can be changed for people who retire subsequently but for those who come under its provisions it represents a promise to them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not for me to dispute with the noble Lord, but I made inquiries before making this statement and that is the expert opinion I have received: that the actual details of the Warrant are not inviolable but can be modified. In fact, the cost of living part was modified by the act of stabilisation in 1935. I am not arguing whether what was done was right or wrong, but am trying merely to state the facts. I believe that to be the absolutely correct position, though I am quite certain that, however long I went on, I should not convince the noble Lord, and I do not propose to try any longer to do so. I really repeat what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, that, whether that be true or untrue—and this has not been disputed to-day—the vast majority of retired officers on the smaller pensions—though not all—are nearly as well off as the result of actions of successive Governments during the last few years as they would have been under the Royal Warrant of 1919.
  I come now to the latter part of the Government Amendment in which the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, is, naturally, mostly interested. I would add that, as our Amendment states, we are very ready to keep under review the needs of these officers. And, of course, I mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, assumed, not merely the old officers who came under the pensions increase scheme but all retired officers. In that respect the Amendment means what it says, and not what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, tried to make it mean—that we were going to do nothing at all. We really shall seriously examine their situation, in the light of changed circum

  391
  stances, to see whether there is anything further we can do to help. It is not true, as has been suggested this afternoon, that nothing has been done to help. There is a sort of suggestion made that nothing has been done since 1919. That is not true. Now, we are ready to consider the situation, and to see whether there is anything further that we can do.
  I would further assure my noble friend that I will personally bring to the notice of the new Prime Minister who has taken over to-day—he has hardly yet entered the doors of No. 10 Downing Street—all that has been said this afternoon; and it is worth bringing to his notice, because I think some very valuable suggestions have been, made. In particular, I thought that some very constructive proposals were made in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. In the light of that assurance—and I am sure Lord Jeffreys will believe me when I say that I really mean it—I hope that, whilst of course he must reserve the right to raise the matter again at any moment he chooses, he will be willing to accept the Amendment, which, I can tell the House, has been tabled by the Government in full realisation of the position to which his Motion very properly draws attention.
  LORD JEFFREYS: May I ask the noble Marquess, before he sits down, whether he would go so far as to say this? I understood him to say that the question would be kept under review. Would he say that it will be kept under review with sympathy? I think something

  Resolved in the Affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

  Motion, as amended, agreed to.

  thing more than merely keeping under review is wanted, and if he will give us such an assurance, one might consider—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be quite willing to say "keep under review with sympathy and understanding." I do not want the noble Lord to read into that more than I say. And I should be misleading him and the House if I said more. I am ready to use those words, if they will give the noble Lord the feeling—which is true—that the Government are really anxious to help.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out all the words after "That," and insert "this House, recognising the action taken in the matter of the Retired Pay of Officers by Her Majesty's Government in March, 1954, to ensure to all officers in receipt of retired pay at the consolidated rates introduced in 1935 an increase of 10 per cent.; and noting the additional assistance made available to retired officers of limited means under the Pensions Increase Scheme of 1952; resolves that Her Majesty's Government should continue to keep under review with sympathy and understanding the needs of these officers."—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided:—
  Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 18.

  CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Gridley, L.

  Salisbury, M. (Lord President.)

  Swinton, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Woolton, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Hindlip, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Carrington, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Munster, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Waleran, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

  Mathers, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Hankey, L.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Goschen, V. [Teller.]

  Jeffreys, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Thurso, V.

  Kindersley, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Teviot, L.

  COUNTY COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  6.53 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I do not want to detain your Lordships long in so doing, but there are three things I should like to say. The first is to thank noble Lords for the assistance they have given the Government in dealing with this Bill in its earlier stages. I believe this has resulted in the improvement of the Bill by the Amendments we have made. We have dealt with the difficult point of costs in borderline actions, and we have clarified the position in cases where contributory negligence arises.
  There are two points with which it was impossible to deal on Report stage and to which I should like to refer. The first is the question of the number of judges which the Bill authorises. I have had a reassessment made and I should like the indulgence of your Lordships so that I may discuss the number of judges with the interested parties and the various functioning organs of the Government before Second Reading in another place. I ask your Lordships to allow me to do that. The second point is one which the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition raised on Committee stage. He asked whether I was satisfied that there was power to have a court in London to which the longer cases could be transferred. I think that the power under Order 16, Rule 1, will deal with this matter. As I indicated, it is a point to which we are giving careful and considerable attention. An obvious court which I think deserves consideration is Westminster, but I am also taking Southwark into account. I did not want to detain your Lordships but I felt I should mention these points. Having mentioned them, I beg to move that the Bill be row read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  6.48 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to apologise for the inability of my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt to be here. I know he would have liked to express to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor his appreciation of
  394
  the way in which the discussions on this Bill have been dealt with. This has not been in any sense a controversial Bill. Its passage through the House has been one of those occasions which see this House at its best, when all sections get together to see how they can improve a Bill. I think that as a result of the discussions this Bill emerges a better Bill. Most of the difficulties about which we were concerned have been dealt with and little is left which remains unresolved, but there are two points to which I should like to refer.
  The first point relates to the number of judges. I do not want to repeat what I said at an earlier stage, but I am concerned that we should not tie ourselves down too rigidly to the number of judges which will be needed for this vastly expanded jurisdiction. One can sit in an office and make paper calculations, but my own experience is that all those paper calculations invariably turn out to be underestimates. Incidentally—this is an amusing illustration—I have found that in the last twenty years a considerable number of town halls have been built in different parts of the country, but not one single town hall has been found to be adequate for its purpose. Before they have been completed they have been found to be too small. I presume that the same sort of calculations of the requirements of local authorities as to the number of rooms and the amount of work to be done, have been made as in this case when deciding the number of judges required; yet before the buildings have been completed they have been found to be inadequate and local authorities have gone around searching for additional accommodation. In this case, if the number of judges is found to be inadequate—and I am convinced that the number mentioned in the Bill is inadequate—the only way to remedy it is by further legislation, which, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, is a difficult process. I should be grateful if he could find some way by which an increase could be effected, perhaps by a simple Order in Council. Nobody is going to run amok in this matter. If the case is made out, there will be no difficulty at all, and there will be no need to come to the House unless a case is made out.
  The second point is one I raised on Second Reading, and I appreciate that there may be some difficulty in giving an answer here and now, certainly in this

  395
  House. That question is about the remuneration of judges, to which I do not think the noble and learned Viscount referred when he replied to the Second Reading debate. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount would admit privately, even if he cannot admit publicly, that county court judges are hopelessly underpaid. Their salaries were fixed at a time when the value of the pound was far different. At that time the position of a county court judge held financial and other attractions. While it is true that there has been an alleged increase, it certainly has not met the increase in the cost of living. I say "alleged increase," because I am told by county court judges that for acting as commissioners in connection with divorce cases they had been getting certain fees which amounted to £1,000 a year, and that amount was commuted to £800 a year; therefore, the increase from £2,000 to £2,800 in the case of many judges meant a reduction of £200 a year. However, I do not want to make too much of that point, whether it is so or not. The fact is that at the best the increase in the remuneration of the county court judge since many years ago when that remuneration was fixed has been £800 a year.
  While this is a great hardship on the existing judges, I am equally concerned with the judges of the future. Are we really going to get county court judges of the right quality and the right capability and temperament at the remuneration which is being offered today? Knowing something about the profession, and something about the calibre of the men at our disposal (not, of course, so much as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack knows) I feel quite sure that we shall have great difficulty with the existing remuneration in recruiting the right type of person as a county court judge. After all, we are increasing the jurisdiction and bringing in a wide range of cases that they will have to deal with. The work of a county court judge will be rendered infinitely more difficult than it has been hitherto. As a result of the extension of the jurisdiction there will be appearing before the judges counsel of considerably higher calibre and more highly paid than those who appear at the present time, and in certain cases silks will be appearing
  396
  before them. It is essential that the dignity and respect that is due to a county court judge should be maintained, and that the judge should be the equal of the barristers who appear before him. I greatly fear that that will not be the case, and that the prestige of the county courts will thereby be reduced.
  There is one other fact, and it is a practical one. No one knows better than the Lord Chancellor that if you have a weak judiciary of first instance you get an increased number of appeals, and if your county court judges are not of the right calibre, then certainly there will be a larger number of appeals to be dealt with by the court of appeal. If that should happen and the number of appeals is substantially increased, then the noble and learned Viscount will appreciate that it takes three judges to hear an appeal, and it is not really good business to have three highly paid Lords of Appeal having to hear appeals which might have been unnecessary if there had been judges of the right calibre in the first instance. For all these reasons, I ask the noble and learned Viscount to give serious consideration to the question of county court judges. I have no personal interest in the matter—I have no hopes of becoming a county court judge—but I am concerned with the dignity of our judiciary, with its efficiency and with the great importance of its giving satisfaction to the increasing number of people who will in future have recourse to it. I hope that, whether it can be done under this Bill in another place or whether it will have to be done in some other way, the remuneration of this important section of the community will be seriously reconsidered.
  7.6 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that most interesting and instructive speech. On the first point, the number of judges, as I indicated in moving the Third Reading, I am still considering that matter, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion about dealing with it by way of an Order in Council and an Affirmative Resolution. I fully appreciate the point that it is a difficult matter, in the ordinary Session, to get another Bill but that time can sometimes be found for an Affirmative Resolution.
  On the question of remuneration, I am afraid that I cannot go further than to promise again that it shall receive the

  397
  most careful consideration. The noble Lord will appreciate that there are a number of judicial offices, I am not going to say of exactly the same type, but in somewhat the same salary bracket, and I have to consider the whole position, and also the question of relativity. However, I assure the noble Lord that it is a matter which will receive careful attention. It is, as I said on Second Reading, one of the effects of a high taxation that pensions become of more importance than they were before. If we have heard once today that pensions and retired pay are part of remuneration, we have heard it twenty times. It is a fact that has to be taken
  398
  into account. On the other hand, I would assure the noble Lord that, so far as I am concerned, I am anxious that we should produce a local judiciary, if I may so term it, of the highest possible calibre, and that litigants, whether their claim be large or small, whether they be poor or rich, should receive a standard of justice which will be of credit to our country. With those words, I repeat my thanks to noble Lords for their help on the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will now give it a Third Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 3a: an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LOSSES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
  LOSSES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND