Sitting of 7 July 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's answer to the Addresses, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Isle of Man) Order, 1955, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Pakistan) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the respective Drafts laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

  IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's answer to the Addresses, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Commission for Technical Cooperation in Africa South of the Sahara) Order, 1955; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation) Order, 1955; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of Western European Union) Order, 1955; and the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the World Health Organisation) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the respective Drafts laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

  STOCK EXCHANGE CLERKS' PENSION FUND BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Agricultural Workers
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to stop the diminution of agricultural labour supply which has taken place over the last four years.
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to halt the continued drift of agricultural workers from the land.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the number of agricultural workers has fallen during the past three years; and what steps he is taking to remedy the shortage.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) on 20th June. The number of regular farm workers in England and Wales fell from 554,000 in June, 1951, to 505,000 in June, 1954.
    Mr. Hale: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard this as a serious state of affairs, and does he not think that some attention should be given to agriculture north of the Sahara? Should he not bear in mind the necessity for maintaining employment in this vital British industry?
    Mr. Amory: I think it is a most important question, but it is a matter that we must keep in perspective. We must remember that during the time that the total of manpower has been falling—it has been falling over a considerable number of years—net output has been steadily increasing. The whole policy of the present Government is aimed at ensuring a strong and productive agricultural industry capable of holding its own in competition.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not agree that many more men would go on to the land and stay on the land if there

    1273
    were better prospects for them to have farms of their own? Could he say what steps the Government are taking to enable farm workers to have some prospects of obtaining smallholdings or farms of their own?
    Mr. Amory: I agree that that is a most important aspect of the problem, but I am afraid it is not one that I can answer in reply to a Question like this. It is something of which I hope we shall always take account when we have an agricultural debate. The hon. Gentleman knows the provisions that are made already for smallholdings.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we are heading for disaster unless at some time or other this drift from the land is checked? As an immediate contribution to the solution of this problem, would the right hon. Gentleman press for the complete exemption from National Service of all farm workers, putting them on the same basis as the Merchant Navy?
    Mr. Amory: That last aspect of the matter should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour, because that is his responsibility. On the general question of the drift from the land, I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the year in which the drift was greatest was 1950–51.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it was Socialist legislation which militated so much against the farmer getting his own farm, under the provisions of the 1947 Act?

    Foxes, Westmorland
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what complaints he has received from the National Farmers' Union about the importation of foxes into Westmorland; and what action he has taken.
    Mr. Amory: None, Sir.
    Mr. Greenwood: Is the Minister aware that on 2nd and 9th April the "Westmorland Gazette" reported complaints that had been made to the Kendal branch of the National Farmers' Union that foxes recently shot in the area had punch marks on their ears, and that crates of foxes had been seen on Oxenholme Station? Could
    1274
    the right hon. Gentleman look into the allegations made?
    Mr. Amory: I have no powers to interfere with the import or export of foxes into Westmorland, but I understand that there are a large number of foxes in Westmorland, and if a trade is taking place I should have expected it to be an export and not an import trade.
    Mr. Vane: When an hon. Member wants to hunt foxes with or without holes punched in their ears in the constituency of another hon. Member, or for that matter to look for red herrings, is it not much more in keeping with the customs of this House that he should give the hon. Member concerned notice that he intends to do so?
    Mr. Greenwood: Are we to gather from the Answer of the Minister that he has no objection if foxes are moved from one part of the country to another, and would it not be much better to concentrate upon extinguishing them as a pest rather than allowing their forcible movement from one part to another?
    Mr. Amory: I am entirely in favour of the number of foxes being kept under strict control, whatever part of the country they are in, and I hope that my remarks will not be taken as being approval of the transferring of foxes from one part of the country to another.

    Fat Cattle (Collective Guarantee)
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fat cattle in England and Wales qualified for the collective guarantee for the period 25th April to 22nd May; and on what grounds these payments were made.
    Mr. Amory: Sixty thousand and sixty-five. In accordance with the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme, 1955–56, the rate of the collective guarantee for cattle for the four weeks ended 22nd May, 1955, was determined by the difference between the estimated average return to producers during the fifty-two weeks ended 27th March, 1955, and the guaranteed standard price.
    Mr. Dye: Was not the average price received for the 60,000 cattle during that period well above the guaranteed price, and therefore the subsidy in addition was far above the guarantee; and, coming at that time, did it not attract to the market

    1275
    more and smaller cattle, which were slaughtered? As they will not be available for the store market, will not the result be less beef later this year?
    Mr. Amory: The reply to the first part of the supplementary question is that that may well have been the case over a short period because that is the effect of the way the payment is computed. The method is called "a moving average." I am satisfied, however, that this method of computing has two great advantages: first, that it enables the payment to be made promptly and, secondly, that over a longish period it means more stable prices instead of fluctuating ones.

    Drainage Rates (Coastal Areas)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt in coastal areas against the drainage rate; and if he will review the working of the 1930 Act.
    Mr. Amory: I am not aware that there is any general dissatisfaction about the drainage rates levied by internal drainage boards in coastal areas.
    The principle embodied in the Land Drainage Act, 1930, that land which derives benefit or avoids danger as a result of drainage operations should be subject to a drainage rate has been an integral part of land drainage legislation for centuries past. I see no justification for reviewing the working of this part of the Act.
    Mr. Osborne: If I send my right hon. Friend evidence of dissatisfaction from my constituents who feel that the Act is operating unfairly to them, will he investigate it?
    Mr. Amory: Yes, I shall be glad to do so.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Whatever may be the case in coastal areas, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread dissatisfaction with the rate in internal areas—for instance, where there is a row of houses and where one half of the road pays at a certain rate and the other half at another rate? Will he not give us any hope that these matters can be gone into?
    Mr. Amory: The effect to which the hon. Gentleman calls attention is inevitable where there are boundaries: there
    1276
    is always a difference. The reply to the first part of the supplementary question is that I have always been dissatisfied with any rate that I have had to pay.

    Requisitioned Land and Premises
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made during the past twelve months in the release of properties held under requisition or otherwise by or on behalf of his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amory: Land held under requisition for farming purposes fell from about 24,000 to 15,000 acres, and premises used as depots or hostels from 123 to 68 in the year ended 1st July, 1955. Land held for temporary allotments by local authorities on my behalf fell from 4,400 to 3,000 acres in the year ended September, 1954.
    Mr. Gower: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that, rightly or wrongly, there still appears to be apprehension in the minds of many people that land and properties are held by his Department, or by other bodies acting on his behalf, without good public reason? Can he give us an assurance that each case has been, or will be, re-examined in the light of that test?
    Mr. Amory: Yes, I have had a review made of all land and properties held under requisition. If my hon. Friend has any case in mind in which he thinks there is no good reason, on public grounds, for retaining requisitioning, I shall be glad to look at it.

    Farmers (Supervision)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers were under supervision in Wales and in England, respectively, at the latest convenient date; and how these figures compare with the respective figures three years ago.
    Mr. Amory: On 31st May, 1955, sixty-seven farmers in Wales and 365 in England were under supervision for failing to comply with the rules of good husbandry. The comparable figures for 1952 are, Wales 324 and England 1,194.
    Mr. Gower: In view of the difficulties of farming in many parts of Wales, does

    1277
    my right hon. Friend not think that the figure for Wales seems rather high in comparison with the figure for England?
    Mr. Amory: If my hon. Friend looks at those figures, he will see that the figures for Wales are proportionately low.

    Foodstuffs (Advertising, Labelling and Composition)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to have an abridged edition of Her Majesty's Stationery Office booklet, "The Advertising, Labelling and Composition of Food," published so that housewives can understand it.
    Mr. Amory: So much of this booklet is now out of date that the issue of an abridged edition would not be helpful. I am, however, considering whether information helpful to consumers could be given in some other form.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to detect noncompliance with the standards described in Her Majesty's Stationery Office booklet, "The Advertising, Labelling and Composition of Food," in cases where the standards are enforceable.
    Mr. Amory: Enforcement in these cases is a matter for the local food and drugs authorities, which have adequate powers under existing legislation.
    Mrs. Mann: I understand that there are adequate powers, but I am told that the staffs have been greatly cut down through recent changes at the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry. Is that so?
    Mr. Amory: No, enforcement depends on the work of the staffs of the local authorities concerned, for which I have no responsibility.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set up an independent consumer research organisation to guide and advise housewives in respect of the advertising, labelling, composition, and prices of food.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I am anxious to encourage an informed public opinion on these matters, and under recent legislation further provision has been made for protecting housewives against abuse of advertising, labelling and composition of foodstuffs. But if any organisation of the
    1278
    kind suggested by the hon. Lady were to be contemplated, it would seem more appropriate for it to be set up by voluntary action.
    Mrs. Mann: But the local authorities cannot have sufficient staff, apart from the weights and measures inspector, who protects the housewife to some extent, so would it not be possible to advise local authorities to have someone else additional to the inspector for this type of work, if the right hon. Gentleman does not consider setting up a research council?
    Mr. Amory: My feeling is that work of the kind which the hon. Lady has in mind is not work which is best done directly by the Government.

    Jamaican Bananas (Purchase)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will undertake the bulk purchase of bananas from Jamaica.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir; State trading in bananas was given up on 31st March, 1953, and I have no intention of putting the clock back.
    Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister agree that unless Jamaica has economic stability, it is likely that political and even social instability will follow? Does this answer mean that his mind is harking back to the bad old days, and does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there is a danger of Jamaica not being able to sell her banana harvest, with consequent economic instability?
    Mr. Amory: The object which the hon. Gentleman clearly has in mind, economic stability in Jamaica, is one with which we should all agree. It is a question of the method suggested, and State trading by us is not one which I feel would be conducive to that end.

    Fat Sheep
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the average collective guarantee per lb. for fat sheep for the six months ended 31st March; and the collective guarantee per lb. for the current six months.
    Mr. Amory: The average collective guarantee for the six months ended 31st March was a fraction under 4¼d. per

    1279
    lb dressed carcase weight: the rate has not yet been announced for the whole of the current six months, but the average for the three months April to June was very slightly over 4d. per lb.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the average market realisation price per lb. for fat sheep during the six months ended 31st March and the average price at the present time.
    Mr. Amory: For the six months ended 31st March the average market price including individual guarantee payments was slightly under 2s. 11½d. per lb. estimated dressed carcase weight. For the week ended 26th June, 1955, the price was 2s. 6¼d.
    Mr. Williams: As there has been a fall of 5d. per lb. in the price of fat sheep, will the collective guaranteed payment increase according to the reduction in the price, or is it likely to decrease while the price of fat sheep is decreasing?
    Mr. Amory: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is the answer that I attempted to give to an earlier Question. The actual payment for the periods depends on the figure of the moving average for the fifty-two weeks ended four weeks before the period in question.
    Mr. Williams: I know that a big effort has been made to obtain the right method and procedure. However, in the light of the figures over the previous six months and the present six months, is it not possible that the collective guaranteed payment may be fairly high while the price is high but now that the price is falling the collective guaranteed payment may fall at the same time?
    Mr. Amory: That could be the result over a short period. I can only say that if the right hon. Gentleman knows a better way of dealing with the situation I should be delighted to receive his suggestions.

    Livestock Rearing and Subsidy Grants (Disputes)
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will appoint a board of arbitrators from which an appointment can be made to settle disputes which arise between farmers and the agricultural executive
    1280
    committee in the cases of grants under the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951, and the Hill Cow Subsidy, 1953.
    Mr. Amory: I should not be justified in parting in this way with responsibilities laid on me by Parliament.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among farmers at the decisions which are being taken these days? Is he aware that the farmer has no chance to put his case in front of the deciding authority, and that in many cases no one visits the farms to ascertain whether the farmers are entitled to the grant or not? Is it not time the farmer had a chance to put his case before the deciding authority?
    Mr. Amory: I cannot agree with what my hon. Friend says. The administration of the grants is a difficult matter. The county committees take endless pains, as do the headquarters officials of my Department. Many cases come to Ministers for decision. I can only say that we do our best. The whole time we are looking for still better ways of administering the grants. If any hon. Member has a case in which he thinks injustice has been done, I hope he will raise it with me personally.

    Wheat Deficiency Payments
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will alter the present system of wheat deficiency payments from a tonnage basis to an acreage basis similar to the deficiency payment for oats and barley.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir. Most of the oats and a considerable amount of barley are normally retained on the farms whereas wheat is primarily a cash crop.
    Mr. Baldwin: Will my right hon. Friend give the matter further consideration? Is he aware that if the system were on an acreage basis rather than a tonnage basis it would prevent any allegations being made that farmers are "fiddling" their wheat—as were made in the debate a few days ago? Would it not also assist farmers who want to consume their own wheat and at present have to send it twenty or thirty miles to be certified, which is unnecessarily costing farmers between £1 million and £2 million a year? Would not a third reason in favour of it

    1281
    be that it would average up the acreage payments as between good farms and marginal farms?
    Mr. Amory: I agree that it might have the merit of greater simplicity, but our present method of basing the deficiency payment on tonnage was the method which was practised with some success under the Wheat Act in the eight years prior to the war. It has the additional advantage that we can have seasonable variations in the standard price.

    Water Supply and Marginal Production Grants (Personal Case)
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will appoint an independent arbitrator or tribunal to investigate the claim of the tenant of Holborn Farm, Brilley Kington, to a grant under a water supply scheme and also a marginal production scheme, such investigation to give the tenant an opportunity for stating his case.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir. Grants in aid of approved water supply and marginal production schemes are payable at the discretion of the Minister and a reference to an independent arbitrator or tribunal would be inappropriate.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this case the decision of the Minister was based upon a report by a very minor official of the A.E.C., and that no opportunity was given to the farmer to refute the allegation which was made in the Adjournment Debate that he had produced a receipt which was not valid and that he was trying to get money under false pretences? Should the man not be given an opportunity to prove that the receipt was a just one?
    Mr. Amory: I would remind my hon. Friend of what I said, that I have to decide whether or not the grants are in accordance with the Acts. I know of no case which has been more fully considered than this one by both one of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries and myself. However, if my hon. Friend has any new facts, I shall be glad to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. T. Williams: Would it not be the case that the right hon. Gentleman acted
    1282
    upon the recommendation of the county agricultural executive committee?
    Mr. Amory: That was, indeed, the starting point.

    Farm Machinery (Spare Parts)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that there is a shortage of spare parts for agricultural machinery; and if he will take steps in the matter.
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the disquiet amongst farmers owing to the shortage of spare parts for farm machinery; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Amory: My inquiries do not suggest any general shortage. I will investigate any particular cases brought to my notice.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain agricultural circles there has been a fear that there would be a shortage of spare parts at the time of the hay and corn harvest, and that his answer will now remove any misapprehension there might have been in certain quarters?
    Mr. Amory: I hope it will. If my hon. Friend has any evidence of shortage, I hope that he will bring it to my notice as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Wilson: Has my right hon. Friend any evidence of difficulties caused by multiplicity of design and lack of standardisation in agricultural machinery?
    Mr. Amory: I have a tremendously strong personal bias towards standardisation in machinery. I think we have not yet gone as far as we ought in the direction of standardisation in the design of agricultural machinery.
    Mr. Pearl: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the problem most affecting farmers in respect of agricultural machinery is its increasing cost? Is he aware that the inflationary tendency in that field is having effects?
    Mr. Amory: That is a rather different question, but the hon. Gentleman will find that the increase in the price of agricultural machinery has been very small during the last two or three years.

    Fowl Pest Outbreaks
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the number of outbreaks of fowl pest during the past three months; and the number of birds destroyed.
    Mr. Amory: In the three months to 30th June 105 outbreaks of fowl pest were confirmed, involving the slaughter of about 89,000 poultry.
    Mr. Crouch: Have the outbreaks been confined to one area, and is research still being carried out to try to find a means of preventing outbreaks?
    Mr. Amory: The outbreaks have not been confined to one area, but almost all of them have been outside the clean areas. Research is most certainly going forward to try to find ways of dealing with this terrible scourge.

    Seaweed Cultivation (Examination)
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken by his Department to encourage the scientific examination of the possibilities of the cultivation of seaweed as a crop for animal or human consumption or as an agricultural fertiliser.
    Mr. Amory: This problem has been studied by the Institute of Seaweed Research, with which my Department has kept in contact. I understand that examination has shown that the cultivation of seaweed for the purposes mentioned by my hon. Friend is unlikely to be feasible.
    Mr. Wilson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, as at least seventy varieties are commonly eaten in the Far East, that the Japanese cultivate seaweed on a large scale, and that there are precedents for using seaweed for animal and human consumption in the British Isles, it would be a good thing to have a scientific investigation to ascertain whether, with an improvement in species, a variety could be obtained which would be suitable for cultivation here?
    Mr. Amory: I should be very glad to follow the results of any experiments that my hon. Friend may carry out in the direction that he has indicated.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Manual Workers (Average Earnings)
    Mr. Summersasked the Minister of Labour the average earnings in industry in June, 1951, when the £2 limit on the earnings of retired pensioners was fixed; and the most recent comparable figure.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): The average weekly earnings of manual workers in manufacturing and a number of the principal non-manufacturing industries in April, 1951, the nearest date to June, 1951, for which figures are available, were £6 16s. 2d. The most recent comparable figure is £8 11s. 9d. in respect of October, 1954.
    Mr. Summers: Has the Minister available the figures for rates for the same period, as opposed to earnings, the figures for which he has quoted?
    Sir W. Monckton: If my hon. Friend will table a Question I will see whether I can supply the answer.

    Automation
    Mr. Allaunasked the Minister of Labour if he will hold an inquiry, inviting trade union participation, into the effects on employment in this country of a spread of automation, automatic processes, and automatic factories.
    Sir W. Monckton: A good deal of study is already being devoted to the various aspects of this subject and I do not think that there is need for me to hold a special inquiry into the effects on employment.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware of the widespread fears among industrial workers that automation will bring serious unemployment unless their hours are cut and their purchasing power increased? Does not he think that the time to investigate this problem is now, when we have full employment, rather than to wait until distress arises?
    Sir W. Monckton: I hoped that I had made it clear that we are considering this subject and observing what has been said by important leaders of various trade unions and industrialists. But I do not

    1285
    think that it is necessary to have a special inquiry at present. On the technical side, inquiries are going on under the D.S.I.R.

    Co-partnership and Pension Schemes (Information)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Labour on what date he expects that statistics of co-partnership, profit-sharing and pension schemes in industry will be published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette; and if he will arrange for these statistics to be as comprehensive as possible.
    Sir W. Monckton: All undertakings believed to have any profit-sharing or co-partnership schemes in operation are being asked to supply full details of their schemes. There will be no avoidable delay in collecting and summarising all the necessary information, but I am anxious that the statistics should be as comprehensive as possible and I cannot say on what date the information will be ready for publication. The possibility of collecting statistics about pension schemes is still under consideration.
    Mr. Gower: When preparing these figures, will my right hon. and learned Friend avail himself fully of the services of the Industrial Co-Partnership Association and, indeed, all industrial and trade organisations up and down the country?
    Sir W. Monckton: I shall be very glad to get any help I can from such associations to be sure that what is published is correct and comprehensive.
    Mrs. Slater: May I ask the Minister whether that will include the Co-operative Partnership Federation, and whether an indication will be given of the difference between the co-partnership schemes to which this Question obviously applies and to those already undertaken by the Co-operative movement?
    Sir W. Monckton: I shall not overlook any of these schemes, but I do not know what statistics will come out until the facts have been analysed.

    Redundant Workers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to find alternative employment for 175 women
    1286
    now redundant at the Elswick Works, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, to which his attention has been called by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central.
    Sir W. Monckton: I understand that the discharge of the redundant workers is being spread over a period of two months. The services of my local officers are available to help those affected to find other employment.
    Mr. Short: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable apprehension in these big works in Newcastle about redundancy? In view of the avowed policy of the Government to preserve full employment, will not he do what I asked him, and consult his colleagues at the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply to ensure that redundancy is dealt with as soon as it appears?
    Sir W. Monckton: In this case, there were fifty-six women who had left by the end of June last of whom twenty-three registered, and ten have already found employment. The rate of female unemployment in Newcastle last month was 1·3 per cent. That puts the matter in its proper perspective, but, of course, I will consult my right hon. Friend to see what he can do.

    Dorset
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women on his employment register in Dorset; the number of each sex unemployed; and the number of each employed in the various trades and occupations recognised by his Department.
    Sir W. Monckton: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Crouch: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend how the figures of employment bear comparison with the rest of the country; and can he give an indication of which trade or occupation most people in the country are engaged in?
    Sir W. Monckton: I think that it would be preferable for my hon. Friend to look at the substantial table of figures. I should not like to make a comparison.
    Following is the reply:
    Estimates of the total number of employees in local areas are available only for the end of May of each year, but statistics of unem-

    ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES (EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED) IN DORSETSHIRE AT END-MAY, 1954, AND THE NUMBERS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES IN THAT COUNTY AT 13TH JUNE, 1955

    Industry

    Estimated total numbers of employees (employed and unemployed) at end-May 1954

    Numbers of unemployed persons on the register of the employment exchanges at 13th June, 1955

    Males

    Females

    Total

    Males

    Females

    Total

    Distributive trades

    4,630

    5,150

    9,780

    41

    33

    74

    Agriculture and horticulture

    8,160

    980

    9,140

    26

    3

    29

    Building and civil engineering contracting

    8,040

    150

    8,190

    54

    2

    56

    Professional services

    2,660

    5,090

    7,750

    15

    16

    31

    Catering, hotels, etc

    1,030

    3,710

    4,740

    12

    37

    49

    Private domestic service

    800

    3,930

    4,730

    14

    22

    36

    Non-electrical engineering

    3,810

    500

    4,310

    15

    3

    18

    Local government service

    3,010

    940

    3,950

    23

    5

    28

    Non-metalliferous mining products

    2,620

    390

    3,010

    12

    2

    14

    Motor repairers and garages

    2,160

    210

    2,370

    4

    —

    4

    Railways

    1,520

    40

    1,560

    2

    —

    2

    Gas

    1,270

    80

    1,350

    3

    —

    3

    Shipbuilding and ship repairing

    1,220

    50

    1,270

    2

    —

    2

    Insurance, banking and finance

    810

    380

    1,190

    8

    2

    10

    Manufacture of parts, etc., for motor vehicles
    and aircraft

    1,010

    150

    1,160

    —

    —

    —

    Electricity

    1,080

    80

    1,160

    —

    —

    —

    Tramway and omnibus service

    990

    110

    1,100

    1

    —

    1

    Milk products

    790

    240

    1,030

    5

    1

    6

    All other industries and services

    13,320

    5,980

    19,300

    171

    83

    254

    Total, all industries and services

    58,930

    28,160

    87,090

    408

    209

    617

    Stevedores' Earnings
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour the approximate weekly earnings of the stevedores for the twelve months prior to their going on strike.
    Sir W. Monckton: I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Osborne: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any means of discovering the extent of the P.A.Y.E. that was repaid to the men on strike during that period?
    Sir W. Monckton: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), those figures would not be available in my Department.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a different Question.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Discharged Men (Medical Condition)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour how many National Service men discharged from the Royal Air Force
    ployment are obtained every month. The latest figures for Dorsetshire are given in the following table:
    have been subsequently recalled in each of the last three years as a result of an improvement in the physical disability which led to the original discharge.
    Sir W. Monckton: None, Sir, for the reason given in the reply to the hon. Member's similar Question on 30th June.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would the Minister consider introducing minor legislation as early as possible to avoid this obvious injustice? If he will look at last evening's "Star" he will see that the editorial indicated that there was great unrest and disquiet in the country about the fact that such an injustice is being perpetrated. Will he also look at T.V. today to see one of these rejects?
    Sir W. Monckton: I cannot promise to look at T.V. today, but I did read the "Star," and I paid attention to the matters put to me by the hon. Member last week. As I said then, the practice which we are following is the one introduced by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin when

    1289
    he was Minister of Labour, and I should not like lightly to alter it because of one case which strikes the hon. Member as unfortunate.

    Merchant Seamen and Sea Fishermen
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Labour if he will remove from the list of merchant seamen exempt from National Service all those employed as waiters or catering staff.
    Sir W. Monekton: Catering ratings, like other merchant seamen, while not exempt from National Service, will continue to have their call-up deferred so long as they remain satisfactorily employed in that occupation, for the reasons stated in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 28th June.
    Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is aware that many people find it rather strange that waiters in what are virtually floating hotels are exempt from National Service if they remain in that employment while those employed in hotels on land are not so exempted? Will he therefore say what training in seamanship, if any, is given to waiters and catering staff?
    Sir W. Monckton: One must first consider the difference between waiters in hotels and stewards on ships—the latter go to sea. Our experience is that cooks would be required however the ships were used in time of war, and stewards are trained as deck ratings so that when occasion requires they can man lifeboats, and so forth.
    Mr. Mahon: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep in mind the contribution made by the Merchant Navy in the darkest days of this country's history? Will he also realise that any discrimination made now between the engine room department, the deck department, and the catering department would be contrary to the traditions of that great Service?
    Sir W. Monckton: I yield to no man in the respect that I pay to that Service.
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Labour to what extent exemption from National Service granted to merchant seamen applies equally to deck hands on sea-going fishing vessels.
    Sir W. Monckton: Men who were bona fide sea fishermen at the date they were due to register under the National Service Acts have their call-up deferred if they are enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve (Patrol Service). If such men give up fishing, or for any reason cease to be members of that Reserve before their National Service liability expires, they are available for call-up,
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there may be some hard cases of men whose eyesight is not sufficiently good? Can he give an assurance that in these cases sea-going fishermen will receive no less favourable treatment than merchant seamen?
    Sir W. Monckton: I think that I have explained what the position is for these sea-going fishermen. There are some 1,482 of them who were, in fact, deferred under this arrangement at the latest available date.

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour the circumstances which resulted in his Department calling upon Mr. G. J. Conquest to report for service in the Army consequent upon his discharge by the Royal Air Force, details of which have been supplied.
    Sir W. Monckton: Mr. Conquest was medically examined on 6th May, 1954, and placed in Grade I. He volunteered for a Regular engagement in the Royal Air Force but was not accepted. He was re-examined on 23rd June, 1954, by a different National Service medical board, placed in Grade I and posted to the Royal Artillery.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that this young man, having been graded by his Department Grade I, and the only proviso for the Royal Air Force being the question of his physical fitness, was rejected on the grounds that he was medically unfit? Having lost his job and been unemployed, this man found another job

    1291
    and was then called up again and found to be Grade I. I have here the papers from the Royal Air Force, according to which he is rejected solely as being unfit.
    Sir W. Monckton: The distinction should always be borne in mind that there may be people who are properly passed fit for National Service standards, but who may not be accepted when they offer themselves for a regular engagement in the Royal Air Force. One reason for that, as anyone with experience of flying will appreciate, is that if a person has any disposition to sinus trouble, he is not likely to be accepted in a Service where he may be flying for considerable periods.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour if he will cancel his instructions to Malcolm Harris to report to the Royal Air Force on Monday next in connection with National Service so that a thorough investigation can be held into his case, because he is suffering from a spinal injury requiring his attendance at the local hospital three times a week for treatment, needs to wear a corset with steel supports, has been measured for another corset, is often in pain, and because his condition requires that he sleeps on a board bed.
    Sir W. Monckton: Mr. Malcolm Harris was medically examined on 28th February, 1955, and after reference to an orthopaedic consultant was placed in Grade III. His medical records do not reveal any evidence that he wore a spinal support at the time of medical examination, but the medical board was aware that he was undergoing treatment. In all the circumstances, I am arranging for this man to be re-examined by a different medical board and the enlistment notice requiring him to report for service on 11th July has been withdrawn.

    Indefinite Deferment
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour how many workers, students and others have been granted indefinite deferment from National Service; and the numbers for each of the main industrial groups, separately.
    Sir W. Monckton: The number of workers granted indefinite deferment at 4th April, 1955, the latest date for which figures are available was 171,337. The
    1292
    numbers in the principal industrial groups were:

    Coal mining

    70,877

    Merchant Navy

    41,574

    Agricultural workers—born before 1933

    54,526

    No students are granted indefinite deferment.
    Mr. Osborne: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he will consider afresh the groups entitled to deferment and view more sympathetically the electronic engineers and research workers who have such an important part to play in our future?
    Sir W. Monckton: I have that constantly in mind. I did not give the figures for the smaller groups. The scientists and engineers engaged on certain priority projects and fundamental research number 1,930, and we have not yet had all the applications for the quota of fundamental research workers for which I have provided.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the number of Questions on the Order Paper which seem to disclose anomalies in the operation of the National Service Acts, and, in particular, in view of the speech of Lord Cherwell in another place, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thinks the time has arrived when the Government might institute an inquiry into this matter?
    Sir W. Monckton: Frankly, I do not think the time has arrived for that. I am constantly watching these applications for deferment, and it is an extremely difficult matter to deal with. It was pointed out to Lord Cherwell in another place that he was asking for more fundamental research workers when the quota we had allowed for had not yet been filled.

    Exempted Persons (Industrial Disputes)
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Minister of Labour if Her Majesty's Government will consider taking the necessary powers to withhold calling-up notices to men in exempted occupations who are engaged in an industrial dispute, pending an inquiry into the circumstances of each case.
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Yates: Does not the Minister agree that the action of his Department establishes a precedent and that there is very deep resentment at the fact that the machinery of State should be, or should appear to be, used either to intimidate or to victimise strikers, whether official or otherwise?
    Sir W. Monckton: There has been no change in the practice. If we thought that a change was desirable, I should not require further powers to bring it into force.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Adoption of Children (Legislation)
    Sir I. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children, Command Paper No. 9248.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I cannot yet say when it will be possible to introduce legislation on this subject.
    Sir I. Clark Hutchison: As the Report is a unanimous one, and as the legislation is not likely to be very controversial, will my right hon. and gallant Friend try to bring it forward at as early a date as possible?
    Major Lloyd-George: Practically all the recommendations involve legislation, and I do not think we can say that it is a matter of tremendous urgency. I can hold out no hope of legislation in this Session.

    Air Raid Shelters, Sowerby Bridge
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that residents in Fountain Street, Sowerby Bridge, have repeatedly asked for the removal of brick air raid shelters from the street on the ground that they are deteriorating, are unsightly, and are an obstruction and that the Sowerby Bridge Urban District Council wishes to have them demolished, he will now authorise their removal.
    Major Lloyd-George: I am informed that these shelters have not deteriorated seriously and that they do not obstruct the road to any extent. Whilst I appreciate that they must be an eyesore, I cannot regard this as a sufficient justification for demolition at the present time.
    Mr. Houghton: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think of any conceivable use for these decaying and unsightly shelters of the last war? How much longer are my constituents to contemplate the futility of this form of Civil Defence in atomic warfare?
    Major Lloyd-George: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that this is futile, nor do I accept that the shelters are not in a fit state at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole policy of Civil Defence is under review, and this matter of shelters is among those being reviewed.

    Taxi Ranks, London
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why a space, approximately 72 yards long, has been marked off on the south side of Piccadilly, extending westwards from opposite No. 119, to accommodate fourteen taxicabs, when it is very rare that more than six taxicabs use this space; and if he will have this space reduced.
    Major Lloyd-George: The responsibility for fixing stands rests with the Commissioner of Police, under Section 4 of the London Hackney Carriage Act, 1850. I am informed that in fixing the length of this stand regard was paid to the very heavy demand for cabs in this area at certain times.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that for a very long period of the day, for example, from eight to half-past ten this morning, no taxicab was in that rank? What possible point can there be in marking out spaces for taxicabs which are never used and which could very conveniently be used by private motorists?
    Major Lloyd-George: I would point out that under Statute this is a responsibility which rests upon the Commissioner. I am informed that at certain times of the day there is a very heavy demand for these spaces, and, of course, it is for the time of the heavy demand that one has to make facilities available.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is taken against private motorists who park their cars in parts of streets marked "Taxi Rank" in the Metropolitan Police area; and by what authority.
    Major Lloyd-George: The Metropolitan Police, as part of their responsibility for the control of road traffic, endeavour to keep authorised cab ranks free from parking by other vehicles. Where such parking is persistent, special police signs bearing the words "Cab rank only" are temporarily displayed, with the consent of the highway authority. Offending drivers are dealt with, according to the circumstances, by way of oral warning or written caution, or where the facts warrant it proceedings are taken for causing unnecessary obstruction.
    Mr. Johnson: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say on how many occasions during the past twelve months action has been taken against private motorists for this offence in the Metropolitan area?
    Major Lloyd-George: I could not say, without notice.

    Murder Trial (Statement)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet considered the statement made by Mr. Friend-Smith to the police before his death and not produced in the trial of James Weaver for murder in 1928; whether he will make a statement concerning it; and why it was not made available at the time of the trial.
    Major Lloyd-George: The statement to which my hon. Friend refers was not in the form of a dying declaration and was not admissible in evidence, but it was before the then Home Secretary, and was taken into consideration by him, together with other relevant material, when he decided to recommend the reprieve of the three men concerned. It does not afford grounds on which I should be justified in re-opening the case.
    Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not consider it strange that when a man is reprieved for murder he still has to serve a sentence, even though he is reprieved because of some doubt as to whether he ever committed the
    1296
    murder? In view of the fact that the defending lawyer said, when he was shown this document one year after the case, that had he been shown it at the time of the trial he would have got the man off, does not my right hon. and gallant Friend think that the Home Office should work in with the man who has served his sentence to see if he cannot be completely cleared? Would my right hon. and gallant Friend consider allowing the man's Member of Parliament—myself —and a legal adviser, to see this document, if it is still in existence?
    Major Lloyd-George: I do not think that I can add anything to the answer which I have just given. My hon. Friend raised this subject some time ago, when we had an opportunity to debate it. I told him at the time that if he was in possession of any further evidence, then, of course, it would be looked at, but the actual document to which he has referred does not afford grounds for reopening the case.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Although this case was a long time ago, can the Minister explain why this document, if it was in the possession of the prosecution at the time, was not made available to the defence? If the prosecution was not proposing to avail itself of it, why should not the defence have been given the opportunity of deciding what, if any, use it could make of it? Why was it withheld?
    Major Lloyd-George: As I said in answer to the Question, it was not admissible in evidence. It was available to the then Home Secretary, who took upon himself the decision to reprieve the three men concerned. Although it is now nearly thirty years ago, I have stated that if fresh evidence can be brought forward it will be looked at.

    Homosexuality and Prostitution (Committee's Report)
    Mr. Hydeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the committee, appointed by him, to study the problems of homosexuality and prostitution.
    Major Lloyd-George: I cannot yet say when the Committee will be able to report. I understand that it is likely to

    1297
    be occupied for some time to cone in hearing oral evidence.
    Mr. Hyde: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend recollect that it is rather more than a year now since this Committee was appointed. In view of the importance of the subject there should be some expedition in the matter, and it should not be lost sight of.
    Major Lloyd-George: I agree, but in view of the importance of the matter I should have thought that too much expedition might be a bad thing. The Committee was appointed just a year ago; it did not start sitting until September, and people were invited to bring forward all the evidence they had by June—but one or two very important witnesses have asked to be allowed a little more time, as their evidence is not ready.

    Taxi Ranks, Railway Stations (Working Party's Recommendation)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the recommendation of the Working Committee on Hackney Carriages regarding privileged taxi ranks at railway stations separately from, and earlier than, the major recommendations which require longer consideration.
    Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir. I have no reason to think that this is a matter of such urgent importance that I should be justified in asking Parliament to deal with it separately.
    Mr. Brockway: Is not this recommendation the simple proposal that, where there is a nearby rank, the men, in rotation, should fill the places on the privileged ranks which are now limited to a few? Is it not the case that the Transport and General Workers' Union and the taxicab men's association support this proposal? Why should it be held up for months while major matters are considered?
    Major Lloyd-George: I think that the hon. Member will appreciate that when a Report deals with a great many other things—this is by no means the most urgent matter—we must wait until we can look at the Report as a whole.

  WALES

    Council for Wales and Monmouthshire
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what activities the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire is at present engaged upon.
    Major Lloyd-George: It is for the Council, within its terms of reference, to determine its programme of work. I understand that its main subjects of inquiry at present include Government administration in Wales, the Welsh National Service man, the Welsh ports, Welsh agriculture, and the Welsh tourist industry.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case that the Council is now considering the advisability, or the necessity, of setting up a Royal Commission to inquire into questions of Welsh administrative and legislative devolution? Can the Home Secretary say when it is likely to make its report on that matter?
    Major Lloyd-George: I could not tell the hon. Gentleman when the Council is likely to make its report, but, as I said in my Answer, it is at present, and has been for some time, looking at the question of administration in Wales.

    FOUR-POWER CONFERENCE, GENEVA (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Prime Minister which Ministers will accompany him to the Four-Power Conference at Geneva.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister the size of the delegation that is to accompany him to the Geneva Conference.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): The delegation which is to accompany me to the Geneva Conference will consist of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, our Private Secretaries and such advisers as we consider necessary.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would it not strengthen the British delegation and please many people in many lands if the

    1299
    Prime Minister were to invite the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir Winston Churchill) to join him?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, that is a wider question. I did not realise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had that kind of level in mind. What I thought he was asking for was the composition of the official aides I would have.
    Mr. Hughes: If the Prime Minister is going to Geneva to negotiate from strength, why is he taking the Foreign Secretary? Is he satisfied that the Foreign Secretary is strong enough to wrestle with Mr. Foster Dulles? Will he not consider approaching the right hon. Member for Woodford to attend the Conference, if only to censor the official communiqué and cut out the platitudes and clichés?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has carried this matter through very rapidly to the conclusion of the Conference. If we reach agreement I think that we shall all be content to put up even with platitudes and clichés in which to express it.

    ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
    Mr. G. R. Straussasked the Prime Minister if it has yet been decided whether the electronics industry shall remain under the responsibility of the Minister of Supply or pass to the President of the Board of Trade.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The decision is that this responsibility will remain for the time being with the Ministry of Supply.

  EDUCATION

    New School Building
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Education how many new schools there were under construction on 1st March, 1954; and if he will give the respective figure for the same date in 1955.
    The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): Figures are not available for 1st March, 1955. On 1st June, 1955, there were 930 new schools under construction, compared with 993 a year earlier.
    Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister confirm that in under two years' time there will be over 1 million school children in secondary schools? Can he give the House an assurance that he is building a sufficient number of secondary schools to take this bulge as the school population move up? Many teachers and education committees do not think that he can do that.
    Sir D. Eccles: The secondary school population is increasing. I think that at its peak in five or six years' time it will be about 750,000 higher than it is now. The hon. Member will realise that secondary schools are bigger than primary schools. That is the reason why the number of schools under construction has gone down.
    Mr. Johnson: Is it not a fact that the classes in secondary schools are smaller? Is it not obvious, therefore, that we shall need more schoolrooms, more teachers for the teaching units, and, of course, more schools?
    Sir D. Eccles: I realise that, and I know that it will be a tight squeeze, but I hope that we shall manage to build enough secondary schools. That is the intention.

    Independent Schools
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Education the numbers of private independent schools in England and Wales and how many of these have been inspected by his Department within the last two years.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): There are about 4,900 independent schools in England and Wales. Since January, 1953, formal reports have been made to my right hon. Friend on 538, but no record is kept of the number of visits paid to all these schools by Her Majesty's Inspectors in the normal course of their duty.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that the public feels that his Department inspects too few of these schools, and that those that are inspected are the better public schools—the good ones—and the vicious ones are not. This is most disquieting. What is he doing to get more inspectors to inspect the less desirable schools on the list of independent schools?
    Mr. Vosper: I do not think that there is any reason to suggest that less frequent visits are paid to any independent schools than to maintained schools. In any case, these inspections are no substitute for Part III of the Act, in respect of which active preparations are now in train.

    State Scholarships
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education whether he will consider the awarding of a number of additional university State scholarships in science, tenable by candidates who undertake to teach science on the completion of their university course.
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. I do not think it desirable to make the tenure of any awards for university courses conditional upon an undertaking of this sort.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the shortage of science teachers is increasing and will continue to increase? What alternative proposals to this one has he to remedy this grave problem?
    Sir D. Eccles: We are aware of the shortage of science teachers, and are doing all we can to remedy it. The Burnham Committee has recommended increased allowances, which local authorities are putting into practice. I think that we can also do a good deal by making the shortage known—and that we are also trying to do.

    All-Age Schools, Urban Areas (Children)
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education to give, for the nearest convenient date, the number of children in urban areas attending all-age schools.
    Sir D. Eccles: In January, 1954, there were 428,055 children of all ages in the all-age schools in urban areas.
    Dr. King: Will the Minister now issue directives to urban education authorities to submit building plans to complete reorganisation of education in all-age schools in urban areas, as he has done with such excellent results in rural areas?
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. I wish I could, but at the moment we have not got the building resources to complete reorganisation in the urban areas. We shall get on to that work as soon as we can.

    Service Men's Children (Educational Facilities)
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education if he is yet able to report on his consultations with other Ministers on steps to be taken to improve the educational opportunities for children of Service men and civilians serving this country abroad.
    Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Education when he expects to announce improved educational arrangements for the children of officers and men serving in the Armed Forces.
    Sir D. Eccles: So far as concerns the provision of boarding education in this country for children whose parents are serving abroad, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence gave on 29th June. All other aspects of the education of the children of Service men stationed outside the United Kingdom are the concern of my right hon. Friends the Service Ministers.
    Dr. King: In the last Parliament the Minister said that he was going to investigate this matter with the other Ministers concerned. Is he aware that the almost universal opinon, held by hon. Members on both sides of the House, is that no man's children should suffer because he is serving his country abroad? Will not he complete the inquiries which he promised to make in the last Parliament and bring forward schemes to improve the educational opportunities for the children of civilians and military men serving this country overseas?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am very anxious to do so, but the hon. Member will realise that this question depends upon more than one Minister.
    Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the children of those men serving in Her Majesty's overseas services?
    Sir D. Eccles: One of the difficulties is how far we should go in this matter.
    Mr. Ede: Have the conversations between the right hon. Gentleman and the Service Ministers ceased? A week ago, when they were asked, they said that they were still talking to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir D. Eccles: No, they have not, but other Departments besides the Service Departments are concerned.

    Handicapped Children (Residential Accommodation)
    Mr. MacCollasked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement on the result of his discussions with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the provision of temporary residential accommodation for educationally subnormal or maladjusted children.
    Mr. Vosper: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he has no evidence that this is a large problem. Local education authorities have power to board, otherwise than at school, children requiring special educational treatment, and could use these powers in appropriate cases for educationally subnormal or maladjusted children pending their admission to special schools.
    Mr. MacColl: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that in my last Question on this subject I drew attention to the fact that children were being brought into court as being beyond the control of their parents who need never have come into court at all if the education authorities concerned had been carrying out their functions under the Education Act? Is not the hon. Member merely evading the issue by saying that there are facilities?
    Mr. Vosper: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend informs me that he has little evidence that this is a large problem. I am prepared to discuss it further with the hon. Member as soon as the Report of the Committee on Maladjusted Children is received, which my right hon. Friend expects will be in two or three weeks' time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. Next week there will be general debate on three subjects asked for by the Opposition.
MONDAY, 11TH JULY—Debate on the Report and Accounts of the British Transport Commission.
TUESDAY, 12TH JULY—Committee stage of the Civil and Services Supplementary Estimates, beginning with: Class VIII, Vote 1, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Class V, Vote 4, Ministry of Health, and Vote 10, Department of Health for Scotland; Class II, Vote 2, Foreign Office Grants and Services.
Committee stage of the Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1953–54.
WEDNESDAY, 13TH JULY—Debate on Monopolies and Restrictive Practices.
THURSDAY, 14TH JULY—Debate on Industry and Employment in Scotland.
FRIDAY, 15TH JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons) Bill; and Report and Third Reading of the County Courts Bill.
If all the necessary business has been disposed of it is proposed to adjourn for the Summer Recess on Thursday, 28th July, on which day, as is customary, the House would meet at 11 a.m. I am giving this early notice for the general convenience of the House and will make a statement later of the proposed date of our reassembly.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS FOR FERMANAGH AND SOUTH TYRONE AND MID-ULSTER
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Hon. Members may be aware that the candidates returned at the General Election for the constituencies of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and of Mid-Ulster are reported to be serving sentences of ten years' imprisonment for offences of treason-felony and, accordingly, to be disqualified from election.
In the case of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, a petition claiming the seat has been presented to the High Court of Northern Ireland, and as the matter is sub judice the House will not expect me to say more, except to point out that it is not the practice of the House to order a new writ to be issued while a petition claiming the seat is pending.
In the case of Mid-Ulster no such petition has been presented and the period for presenting one has expired. Where no petition claiming the seat is pending the House is bound to take notice of any legal disabilities affecting its Members and to see that a writ is issued in the room of a Member adjudged to be incapable of sitting. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary will, therefore, tomorrow move for a Return so that the House may be formally acquainted with the facts constituting the disqualification in respect of this seat, and I wish now to give notice that as soon as possible thereafter the Government will propose a Motion inviting the House to declare the seat vacant and ordering a new writ to be issued.
Mr. Ede: When the right hon. Gentleman said "thereafter," in the last phrase that he used, he means, I take it, after we have received the Return and have had an opportunity of studying it?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, of course. The procedure is that while there is no real doubt about the facts about these two gentlemen, the facts have to be confirmed by the proper authorities. That is the purpose of the Return for which my right hon. and gallant Friend will be asking. It is only after the House has seen what the case is that we shall move.
Mr. Shinwell: Is the Motion to which the Lord Privy Seal has referred debatable?
Mr. Crookshank: I think so. May I confirm that later? I am almost sure that it is, but I did not expect to be asked that question.
Mr. E. Fletcher: What is the effect of the petition which is pending before the High Court of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Crookshank: A petition is before the court. I do not think I ought to say anything more about it.
Mr. Fletcher: What is the petition asking for?
Mr. Crookshank: It is to claim the seat, if possible. May I quote what I have already said:
"It is not the practice of the House to order a new writ to be issued while a petition claiming the seat is pending."
That is the purpose of the petition.
Mr. Fletcher: Who is claiming the seat?
Mr. S. Silverman: Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm what many of us inferred from what he said, that the gentleman who is the petitioner in the proceedings, and who is claiming the seat, is the Tory opponent of the man who received the largest number of votes? Secondly, is it the Government's intention to table the Motion in the other case before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Crookshank: I hope that we shall have the information before then because, as the House knows, it is rather a serious matter to leave a seat vacant indefinitely. I could not give any assurance yet about dates.
Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped that we should have the Return soon. One assumes that we shall have it tomorrow. In his original statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would table a Motion. How long an interval does he contemplate there will be between getting the Return and the Government tabling the Motion?
Mr. Crookshank: I said "As soon as possible." I imagine that that means a few days, in order that the House may be acquainted with the facts. Indeed, it might be only one day if it was a perfectly simple case.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order. Is it not customary in these cases for you, Mr. Speaker, to receive a communication about the position of hon. Members? Is it the normal practice that we should receive our information about hon. Members through the Leader of the House or a Minister, and not through yourself?
Mr. Speaker: I inform the House of any communication of that kind which I receive, but I have received no communication. It is quite a proper practice that there should be a Motion for a Return, so that the House shall have the facts officially before it prior to taking further proceedings. That is in accordance with the precedents.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the Lord Privy Seal realise that he is completely in error in attempting to use the doctrine of sub judice in a case like this? The question which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) asked was one of fact. Surely the facts must be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman. Does he realise that this is his duty to obtain the facts and not to attempt to take refuge in a doctrine that does not apply at all?
Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that this question is in order. I understand that this particular case is before the court at the moment. If so, we surely cannot comment on it.
Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order. The Lord Privy Seal asked the House to suspend judgment, on the ground that a certain matter was sub judice. Is not the House entitled to know the effect of the judicial proceedings that it is asked to await? Surely I am entitled to ask the Leader of the House whether it is a fact that the defeated candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is asking to be declared the legitimate person to occupy this seat? Secondly, how long is it expected that the proceedings in Northern Ireland will take before this House is entitled to consider what steps should be taken to deal with a constituency which appears at the moment to be disfranchised?
Mr. Speaker: That depends upon the court. I do not see how the Lord Privy Seal can assist in the matter.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend
1308
the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). Surely it is not within the province of the Leader of the House to take refuge in the doctrine of sub judice when it does not apply. That would only apply to the issue raised, but it does not apply to the facts which he purported to lay before the House, and which, in fact, he incompletely laid before the House. My hon. Friend merely asked for a full disclosure of the facts, and that is not covered by doctrine of sub judice.
Mr. Speaker: I do not understand the hon. and learned Member at all. I heard the Lord Privy Seal say that in the case of Fermanagh and South Tyrone a petition claiming the seat had been presented to the High Court of Northern Ireland, so the matter is sub judice. Surely that is plain.
Mr. E. Fletcher Mr. E. Fletcher rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter now.
Mr. Hector Hughes: You have been good enough to say, Mr. Speaker, that you did not understand my point. Let me put it to you in another way.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: The hon. and learned Member is boring everybody.
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman purported to lay before the House certain facts. He laid them incompletely, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East asked for the full facts. In reply, the Lord Privy Seal attempted to take refuge in the doctrine of sub judice, which does not apply at all.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is surely quite wrong about that. The only facts which the right hon. Gentleman laid before the House about this particular case was that a petition claiming the seat has been presented to the High Court of Northern Ireland. Surely that is quite enough to stop us proceeding further now.
Mr. A. Henderson: What my hon. and learned Friend is asking, Mr. Speaker, is whether we can be told who the petitioner is. That has nothing to do with the issues raised by the petition, but is merely asking a question of fact. Can the Leader of the House say who the petitioner is?
Mr. Crookshank: Of course, I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman knew what the law was in this connection. Under Section 108 (1, c), of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, the person who claims is the defeated candidate.
Mr. E. Fletcher Mr. E. Fletcher rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It really seems to me that for the purpose of this discussion the name of the petitioner is quite irrelevant. It is sufficient for me that the case is being tried before the High Court of Northern Ireland. That is the only matter with which I have to deal. It is quite improper for the House to canvass a case which is before the court.
Mr. Fletcher: On a point of order. Surely this is a matter of which the High Court of Parliament is entitled to be fully informed, whether or not the High Court of Northern Ireland is considering the case. With great respect, I am suggesting that I am entitled to ask the Lord Privy Seal how long he expects it to be before this petition is considered by the High Court of Northern Ireland, so that the House may know when it may be entitled to consider the facts of the case.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now asking the Lord Privy Seal a question about a matter for which the right hon. Gentleman has no Ministerial responsibility whatsoever. The length of the case must depend on circumstances entirely outside his control.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he realises that there is also the point of view of the men in gaol? Could I ask whether these hon. Members, duly elected in free elections—to which the Government pay so much attention in other countries—will be allowed to come here, or whether any steps will be taken to help them explain their point of view to the House?
Mr. Crookshank: As I understand, the whole point at issue is that they were not qualified to be elected.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. It is being suggested that there is no point of which the House can take cognisance in the matter of these proceedings sub judice, but the House is concerned with other proceedings which the right
1310
hon. Gentleman has told us are not sub judice at all. I refer to those about which we are to have a Return tomorrow and a Motion on a subsequent occasion. What I understand my hon. Friend to be asking is whether, on that occasion, the gentleman who received the largest number of votes, who was declared elected, and against whom no petition has been lodged or now can be lodged, will be given the opportunity of coming here when the House debates the Government's Motion and telling us what he has to say about it.
Mr. Speaker: We must await the result of the petition in that one case, and await the debate in this House when we deal with the second case.
Mrs. Braddock: I do not know about anybody else, but, for my own information, can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that a person who is said to be ineligible, by law, to be nominated as a candidate ever reaches the position where he can stand as a candidate? Who accepted him as a candidate if he was ineligible to be a candidate in the first place? I may be stupid, but to me that seems to be a perfectly elementary question.
Mr. Crookshank: I am not learned in this section of the law—or, indeed in any part of the law in a technical sense—but the fact remains that these two gentlemen did stand as candidates, they were returned at the head of the poll, and it is now questionable whether they were, in fact, elected. I have to put it in that form, because it is for others to say whether or not they were ever elected at all—because it is alleged that, by virtue of previous acts which they had committed, they were disqualified. If the hon. Lady is trying to ask me, as I think she is, how it was that their nominations were ever accepted in the first place, I think it would be as well if she tabled a Question and got a reasoned reply from those who have to study these matters and details. I think that I could give her an off-the-cuff reply, but I do not think that that would be fair to the importance—because it is very important —of the question. I would, therefore, ask her to table a Question and receive a reasoned reply.
Mr. S. Silverman: Further to the point of order which I raised just now and to

1311
the answer which you were good enough to give me, Mr. Speaker. Is there not, in quite recent experience, the precedent of a man who was elected here—or apparently elected here—in whose case a question was afterwards successfully raised as to whether he was ever really qualified at all? I refer to the case of Mr. MacManaway. In that case, in the discussion that took place—or in the earlier discussions—Mr. MacManaway had an opportunity of being present and of addressing the House. The question, therefore, that I was addressing to you was whether the gentleman who has been returned at the head of the poll and declared elected, and against whom no petition has been lodged, will not have the same opportunity as had Mr. MacManaway in precisely analogous circumstances.
Mr. Speaker: I think that there are distinctions between the two cases, but surely this is not the time to discuss this. All the Lord Privy Seal has done today is to say that the Home Secretary will tomorrow move for a Return giving us the facts about this case, and that thereafter there will be a Motion. This is not the time to debate it at all.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order. In the last few days the Leader of the House has moved Motions in the case of two other hon. Members whose election is possibly disqualified in the same way as is that of those whom we are now discussing. The question arises whether, in either case, those two hon. Members were eligible as candidates. In those cases the Leader of the House proposed that a Select Committee be set up to examine them. May I ask you to differentiate between the cases, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is wrong in saying that the cases are the same. In the cases that are being referred to a Select Committee there is some doubt about the definition of an office of profit under the Crown—a very obscure branch of the law—but the law does lay down certain definite disqualifications for membership of the House. The cases mentioned today come within the latter category.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can hear no more on that point of order. If the hon. and learned Member has a new point of order I shall listen to it, but I have dealt with the one which he raised before.
Mr. Hughes: The point of order which I wish to raise arises out of your Ruling on the last-mentioned point of order, Sir. You said that this was not the time to raise the points which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). May I ask for your guidance? Will tomorrow be the proper time to raise these points? You said, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the proper time because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is to move a Motion tomorrow. Does that mean that tomorrow will be the correct time to raise these points of order, which you now rule out?
Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. As I understand, the Motion to be moved tomorrow is a Motion for a Return of information to which the House is entitled. There can be no discussion about that.
Mr. C. Pannell: May I raise a new point of order? Some time tomorrow, or at some other time, can you consider, Mr. Speaker, whether being in prison is an office of profit under the Crown?
Mr. Speaker: I think that that raises much wider issues.
Mr. Rankin: I wish to ask a question on the business statement—
Mr. Speaker: We have passed business.
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Are we to have no opportunity whatsoever to put questions on the business statement that was made by the Leader of the House? He moved immediately after his statement, to consideration of the problem of the Irish hon. Members. There was no opportunity to ask questions on business.
Mr. Speaker: It is in order, of course, for an hon. Member to ask further questions on business, but he must be in time. When the Leader of the House had made his statement about business I waited to see whether there was any question to be put and, as there was none, we passed to the next business. The hon. Member is out of time now.

NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1953–54
Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army, and Air grants for the year ended 31st March, 1954, and the application of surpluses to meet expenditure not provided for in the grants for that year, upon Tuesday next.
Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army, and Air Departments [presented 27th January, 1955, 1st February, 1955, and 27th January, 1955, respectively, in the last Parliament] referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the Civil Contingencies Fund and to authorise the making of loans for the purpose of implementing potato price schemes and an increase in the loans which may be made to the Government of Northern Ireland it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) any increase in the sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund or in the moneys to be raised under the National Loans Act. 1939, which is attributable—

  (i) to the repeal of so much of the proviso to subsection (1) of section three of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1946, as directs that sums issued under that section to increase the Civil Contingencies Fund shall be repaid by a specified date, or

  (ii) to the increase up to thirty million pounds of the limit in subsection (1) of section two of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1950, on the sums which may be lent to the Government of Northern Ireland under that section.

  (b) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums to be advanced to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to enable him to make loans to any body charged with duties under any scheme for guaranteeing prices or assuring markets to potato growers, subject to a limit of thirty million pounds on the principal amount outstanding in respect of the advances, and the raising of money under the National Loans Act, 1939, to provide or replace sums so issued.

  (c) the payment of any sums into the Exchequer and, in the case of sums which represent the repayment of principal or the payment of interest, the issue of those sums out of the Consolidated Fund for application in redeeming or paying off debt or meeting part of the annual charges for the National Debt respectively.

  Resolution agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(THE CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND.)
3.54 p.m.
The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if all the Amendments proposed to Clause 1 are considered together.
Mr. Douglas Jay: I am not quite sure, Sir Charles, whether that would be precisely for the convenience of the Committee. If I may, I would submit that it might be convenient if the Amendment in my name, in page 1, line 8, be taken with the Amendments in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
The Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) raise a separate issue. Those Amendments are in page 1, line 17, to leave out "seventy-five" and insert "fifty" and in page 2, line 7, to leave out "seventy-five" and insert "fifty."
The Chairman: That is an alternative issue.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: With respect, may I say that the Amendments in my name raise a totally different point from the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). In the event of the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend being not approved by the Committee, I hope it would be still open for me to move my Amendment and to try to persuade the Committee to consider it.
The Chairman: I was under the impression that all these Amendments went together. I will give further consideration to the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) but I cannot give an undertaking whether I shall select them or not.
Mr. Jay: Do I understand that, initially, we are to discuss the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends, in page 1, line 8, with the Amendments in the name of the Financial Secretary?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) Paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of the said section three shall be amended by the substitution in line four thereof of the word "fifty-eight" for the word "fifty-five" (which was, by the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1950, as amended by the Civil Contingencies Fund Act, 1952, and further amended by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1954, substituted for the word "fifty" in the original section).
1316
In our view, this is a moderate and reasonable Amendment which I cannot believe the Government will find any substantial reason for resisting. Its purpose is to limit to three years the new ceiling of £75 million for the Civil Contingencies Fund as proposed by the Government. The Amendment would carry out what seems to us a most sensible and constructive suggestion which was put forward on Second Reading by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member is not in his place to discuss this important matter this afternoon.
Captain Charles Waterhouse: May I say on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend that he very much regrets that he cannot be here at present.
Mr. Jay: We all very much regret that. The Committee will not doubt the respectability of this Amendment, since the suggestion comes from so eminent a source. We found the speech of the right hon. and learned Member so convincing that we were entirely converted to his proposal. I was only surprised that he did not put down his name in support of this Amendment. No doubt if he were here this afternoon he would support us in the Division Lobby, should we, unhappily, be forced to press our proposals to that length.
In putting the name of a member of the Front Opposition Bench to this Amendment we have shown our customary moderation in not giving full support to any proposal to reduce the ceiling of the Civil Contingencies Fund from £75 million to £50 million. A very good case could be made for doing that, but I hesitate to argue that case at the moment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East has a separate Amendment proposing that course. In spite of that good case, for the purpose of this Amendment we are giving the Government the benefit of the doubt over the £75 million total which they propose. We are merely saying that in the interests of House of Commons control over expenditure we should let the Government come back in three years, or three-and-a-half years, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, and show that in the then circumstances and policies the figure of £75 million is justified.

1317
Surely that would be only a reasonable and prudent safeguard for Parliamentary control of expenditure. There is a strong reason for this proposal. In the Bills of the Labour Government, both in 1946 and in 1950, we made the whole arrangement temporary. By the 1950 Act, against which, incidentally, the then Conservative Opposition raised such a howl of protest, we laid down that the new total—£1261 million as it was then—was to expire on 31st December, 1952. I think the Financial Secretary will agree that that is correct.
4.0 p.m.
That time limit was subsequently extended by the present Government to the end of 1955, and that is why the Bill has been introduced at the present time. If the Committee does not approve this Clause and if the House does not pass the Bill, the Civil Contingencies Fund would not stay at f126½ million, the previous total, but would fall on 31st December this year to the pre-war figure of £l½ million. I think the Financial Secretary will agree that that is correct, and that, if so, it is important for the Committee to realise what it is doing this afternoon. Without the Bill the total would fall not to £126½ million but to £l½ million at the end of the present year.
What the Government propose, although it might not be fully realised from the Financial Secretary's Second Reading speech, is not to reduce the Civil Contingencies Fund but, for the first time since the war, to make it permanent and to make it permanent at a figure which is very high for normal times. I therefore suggest to the Financial Secretary that it would be a reasonable compromise if the Committee were to accept the figure of £75 million for the time being, but to limit its operation to three years. That would be in line with what we did in 1950, although we moderately took two years instead of three.
In our view, anything less than that would not fully safeguard the essential principle of Parliamentary control. I will draw the Financial Secretary's attention to the words of the then right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), who has now left us, in the 1950 debates. He said:
"Ever since the House of Commons was formed it has been the duty of Members of Parliament to keep a control over finance …"
1318
—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1950; Vol. 477. c. 1079.]
He went on to say that we could not do that if the Government had huge amounts of petty cash in the till.
It is no answer for the Financial Secretary to say that the Government borrow from this fund and subsequently present a Supplementary Estimate to the House. Anybody who has had the misfortune to be the main earner in a family knows that it is one thing for a member of the family to say, "May I spend £1? May I have the money now?"—one can then argue whether it is worth while—and another thing for that member to say, "Six weeks ago I bought a new pair of wicket-keeping gloves and here is the bill for £2 10s." In the second case it is not so easy to argue that the money should not be found.
When Supplementary Estimates are introduced into the House, I do not know how the Financial Secretary thinks the House can refuse to approve them. What would happen if we did? Rather appositely, Supplementary Estimates for £36 million were introduced into the House yesterday and it is a safe bet, whatever the merits of those Estimates, that the Government will ask us to approve them and that the House, whatever it thinks, will be compelled to do so. Any such answer on those lines is, therefore, not a complete answer.
I had hoped that the Financial Secretary would have been equally convinced with us by the very persuasive argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South and would have accepted our Amendment. I do not see why he should object to it. It gives him his £75 million and merely says that in three years' time, when, possibly, there will be a new Financial Secretary, the Government will have to make out their case to the House.
Instead of accepting the Amendment, the Financial Secretary has put down other Amendments, and perhaps I am in order in referring to them now. The Financial Secretary's alternatives are quite inadequate. He proposes to give the Treasury the power by Order to reduce the £75 million at any time the Government may wish. I must tell him that in our view that is not good enough. If the Committee accept it, then no discussion of this matter will ever arise unless the

1319
Government want it to arise and come forward and ask for a reduction. I think I have never heard a case of the Opposition or of back benchers on the Government side putting down an Order and moving it in the House. That is always an action taken by the Government.
Surely the onus of proof should rest with the Government in making a case in three years' time for this high figure of £75 million. That is what we did when we set a time limit in the 1950 Act. If the Financial Secretary's Amendments were accepted, the matter would be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons altogether. If I have not convinced the right hon. Gentleman already, I appeal to him to think over this matter again and to accept our Amendment, for which there is evidently considerable support for it not only on this side of the Committee but also on the other side of the Committee.
Mr. Geoffrey Stevens: Many of us on this side of the Committee were pleased with the suggestion that we should reduce from £126½ million to £75 million the amount of money available without direct Parliamentary control, but, despite our pleasure at that reduction, like the right hon. Member Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), we regretted the remaining lack of Parliamentary control. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), on Second Reading on Friday, suggested a time limit of three, four or five years to this sum of £75 million, and he has been interested and intrigued, as I have been, to see the attempts by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North and his hon. Friends, apparently finding so little thunder on their own benches, to steal my right hon. and learned Friend's thunder by putting down the Amendment.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Where is he?
Mr. Stevens: My right hon. and learned Friend has already expressed his regret at his inability to be present this afternoon. I reinforce that regret, but I can speak with his authority, having had discussions with him. I am not sure that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North is tight when he says that to accept
1320
the Financial Secretary's Amendments will not give us Parliamentary control over these large sums unless the Treasury makes an order. I should have thought it would be possible for an hon. Member to raise the question of the desirability of the Treasury making such an Order on the Adjournment at any time, thus bringing from the Government a statement of the existing position.
Mr. Hale: That would be completely out of order on the Adjournment. If it were permitted, we should be most anxious to do it on every Adjournment.
Mr. Stevens: We should have to accept the ruling of the Chair about that, but I believe, and am informed by my right hon. and learned Friend, that that is the interpretation which he places upon the Financial Secretary's Amendments. My right hon. and learned Friend has expressed himself well satisfied with these Amendments, which go practically the whole way to meet the point which he made, and on his and my own behalf I express thanks to the Financial Secretary for having met us in this way.
Mr. Hale: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) for the observations he made about the lack of constructive comment from this side of the Committee, because, if our diffidence and our efforts to assist the Government to get business through are to be interpreted in such a way, we shall be happy to endeavour to provide him with sufficient constructive criticism and help in the debate to remove from ourselves the reproach that we are not being sufficiently active.
Time after time we have sought to raise these matters on the Adjournment, and time after time the Chair has ruled, and had no option but to rule, that any matter involving legislation cannot be introduced on the Adjournment. Any alteration of the Budget is out of order on the Adjournment and, as I understand it, any matter advocating anything which would require legislative enactment—as against action by Statutory Instrument—would be out of order on the Adjournment.
Mr. Stevens: The hon. Gentleman has very great experience of Parliamentary procedure and I have very little. Is it his view that a Treasury Order is the same thing as legislation?
Mr. Hale: No. I would certainly not seek to limit our powers on the Adjournment. The hon. Member will know that on one or two occasions we have had the whole Adjournment occupied by arguments as to whether a matter should be done by legislation or by Statutory Instrument, and I have always taken the view that Treasury Orders are Statutory Instruments within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments procedure.
In the main, the matters which we are discussing today can arise only on the discussion of the financial procedure of the House. I venture to say that one of the very serious matters which has happened in the last few years, and one which I think my party was as much responsible for as any other party, is the tendency to allow a detailed discussion on financial procedure to pass from the House. We used to be able on the discussion of Estimates to be able to raise any item on the Estimates before us, but now the usual channels select the matter for discussion under the amended orders, and the opportunity of discussing many controversial Estimates does not arise at all.
I think that is a matter to be deplored. That is why I think that we should take the opportunity today of discussing some of the matters which arise upon the consideration of the existence of this Fund, and of the provisions which we now are called upon to enact with regard to it.
I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) is now with us. We have deplored his absence in view of the very able expression of opinion which he has given on previous occasions. His absence may perhaps have been due to his having been at the Test Match.
Sir Patrick Spens: I wish I had.
Mr. Stevens: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give us the latest score.
Mr. Hale: It was 128 for four the last time I saw it. That is not on the Civil Contingencies List, although it is an unhappy contingency.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in opening the discussion on Friday, said that he was going to treat us to a meal of five courses. It was not a very succulent meal or a very helpful one, and there were times when I read the speech through when I thought
1322
that he missed out the pièce de resistance. At the end, he left me wondering whether, in his observations on Clause 4 in relation to transport, he had in mind the alimentary canal instead of the Grand Junction Canal.
A reference to the paper which the right hon. Gentleman issued on this matter, before he had to explain it to us, gives a different view of this Civil Contingencies Fund. The Explanatory Note on the very last White Paper on the subject contains this:
"The Civil Contingencies Fund, in its present form, dates from 1862. It is used, under the control of the Treasury, primarily to meet payments for urgent services in anticipation of Parliamentary provision for those services becoming available, and to provide the funds required temporarily by any Government Department for necessary working balances or to meet other temporary cash deficiencies.
"The Fund is also used to meet payments for various miscellaneous items not appropriate to any specific Vote of Parliament. No payment can remain as a final charge on the Fund and Parliamentary authority for these miscellaneous payments is obtained, and the Fund recouped, by means of an annual Vote entitled 'Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund'…"
4.15 p.m.
That annual Vote is one which, so far as I can remember, we have not had an opportunity of discussing for some years. That is unfortunate, because it contains many items of very considerable interest. It touches on almost every aspect of policy from flood relief, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to the cost of the temporary provision of gowns for Her Majesty's judges, to contributions for official visits abroad, and, as I understand it, to grants —a very important matter—for the relief of distressed refugees in the Middle East, and so on.
All these are, unfortunately, comparatively small payments of the total figure. the limit of the Fund is £1½ million. The object of this Fund is to provide petty cash. The Fund was constituted as the petty cash fund of Her Majesty's Government. In the old days when I used to be responsible for the limited accounting in a comparatively small but prosperous office, we used to draw a cheque for £5, which covered items of transport expenses. If I wanted to go home on the bus and had no money, I could help myself to 3d. and travel on one. These items for transport are written out in hundreds of thousands of pounds. One item runs into

1323
£1 million. In the main, however, it is petty cash which we are discussing.
The war provided a wholly different situation. The limit to the Fund is £11 million. When we are discussing finance and the control of finance, we try to get away so far as we possibly can from party considerations. At that time we had a vastly increased expenditure, as we had, too, immediately after the war. We had transport expenses of troops transported by aircraft. We were facing a fantastic financial dilemma in the immediate post-war situation which inevitably arose. We had fought the war for four years. As the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir Winston Churchill) reminded us, we got precious little time to consider items of £.s.d. The object was to end the war as soon as possible and to end it as successfully as possible. The Committee temporarily surrendered in those days much of its control over finance and the inspection of finance, because it was abundantly obvious that the methods of checking accounts could not be carried out.
We are back in peace-time now, I hope, and a time when we should be thinking in terms of £1½ million. The right hon. Gentleman says that the more recent practice is to have Supplementary Estimates; that for the time being there are advances from the Civil Contingencies Fund which are repaid when the appropriate Parliamentary authority has been obtained; and that this does not, in fact, impose any addition to the original cost, but is merely in a sense, a procedure whereby this is done.
I never pose as one who understands economics, and in my own view I know very little more about economics than those who do. There arises the interesting question of how far we contribute to inflation by having two separate funds as large as this. As I understand, it is largely a matter of an item in a ledger, an entry in some form of bank balance. However, the very creation of two separate funds adds to the difficulties and to the currency which can be issued and so makes an additional contribution to inflation.
Mr. Stevens: That would not be so. Provided the money has to be found and spent it does not matter out of which fund it comes; the effect on the economy is exactly the same.
Mr. Hale: Yes. The effect on the economy will be the same, I agree, I said so a sentence or two ago. However the process of paying into one fund and drawing out of another, and of transferring from the second fund to the first, does add to the gross quantity of capital and affects the amount of currency at issue. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tells me that I am wrong. I accept his assurance, as I always accept what anyone says about economics, because it is one of those sciences about which it is impossible to make an assertion or contradiction with confidence or accuracy.
When the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, who speaks with such authority, puts forward a view, we accept it. We say, "Here is a profound and statesmanlike statement made by a former member of the judiciary who speaks with feelings of modesty and restraint," and when he says something like this with all the force he can, we say, "Here we will stop and this we will accept as a reasonable view." What he said was this. He said that there was something to be said for the Government. One wants to say what good one can of the Government because one rarely has any chance of being able to say any such thing. There is this much to be said for the Government, that they have introduced a Measure which reduces the amount of the Fund. It is, therefore, fair to say that this Measure is an improvement on the existing situation. It is to that extent exempt from more serious criticism.
However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said then, "Let us have this limit for three years." That is a rather surprising attitude to take, because the Financial Secretary himself said that they did not want £75 million last year. "Things were going on all right," he said, "and we used a total of only £37 million out of £75 million." So it would not be unreasonable to press for a smaller sum, especially as this new Government were elected after many promises were made to the electors and assurances given. The Government were elected very largely because they claimed a reputation for financial probity, in support of which they gave very few convincing instances.
Now, about one of the first Measures which they bring to Parliament, they say, "Things may get worse than they were

1325
last year. Last year we did not want £75 million or anything like it, but we should like you to give us £75 million for ever because we cannot say that certain adverse contingencies may not increase."
I do not want to press that argument too much, but it did seem a somewhat surprising and alarming suggestion for the right hon. Gentleman to make. Perhaps it was because of the right hon. Gentleman's modesty, but it hardly bears out the claims the Government make for their good housekeeping and sound economy, which were the basis of many statements issued by the noble Lord who was in charge of Conservative propaganda.
There are some astonishing items listed in the Fund. I know how difficult it is to keep these accounts and to present them within a reasonable ambit and yet in a way the Committee can understand, but the way in which figures are presented to Parliament now is really a disgrace. There are advances from the Fund recoverable by sundry Votes of Parliament. Here is an item:
"Class I. Silver £3,510,000."
And that is the only explanation of it. Here is another:
"Class II. Foreign Office £2,501,000."
The right hon. Gentleman may say, "That is all very well, but if you will look at the proper Votes, you will find the information you want." It is not true. Votes are not presented now in such a way. Only this morning there have come out Supplementary Civil Estimates, and token Estimates for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. On some of the main questions there is a very vague explanation providing no possibility of computing what the final figures will be. In the main, many figures, very big figures, are given without any explanation at all, and we have reached the stage in which the Committee is continually called upon to consider figures in gross. Ministers take a sort of pride in them and in their magnitude, calling them "global sums." They are presented without any details or any explanation to afford us any opportunity for debate.
That is why I think my right hon. Friend was right to move his Amendment. Perhaps, it is not so stringent an Amendment as it ought to have been. We must, by every means, ensure that Parliament
1326
keeps control of expenditure, and considers every item so far as the rules permit. and is not led into parting bit by bit with the control of the expenditure of the Government, so that control of the Government's expenditure passes out of the hands of the Committee wholly into the hands of the Civil Service.
Captain Waterhouse: I would add my voice to the thanks which have been expressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the concession, notice of which he has put on the Paper. I should have liked to have seen it go a good deal further. I make no disguise of that, and I hope that this is not the last word in this Parliament on this subject, and it is to that that I want to bend a few remarks.
If this debate has had no other effect, it has induced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Jay) to read mark, learn and inwardly digest the remarks of my now noble Friend Lord Clitheroe, who used to represent Blackburn in this Committee. I commend his works to the right hon. Gentleman. He could find no better mentor in his political or financial studies.
There are two main aspects of this very serious issue. The first is the basic argument that always goes on between administrative convenience and financial control. Parliament must have close control over expenditure, even though it is inconvenient to the Treasury and inconvenient to the other Departments. The second is the amount which is at issue in this Clause.
I think that in 1913 the figure was £120,000 out of an expenditure of some £150 million, about 0·1 per cent. of the expenditure. That grew to about ½ per cent, after the First World War. It is now about 2 per cent. Of course, if we take the figures the growth is more alarming still. The figure now is about 600 times what it was in the period when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North started his interesting little history.
The Financial Secretary said that that did not matter very much. He said:
"I think there are people who imagine that the Government can, as it were, get away with payments not duly authorised by Parliament through using the Civil Contingencies Fund for that purpose. That is not the case."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 663.]

1327
I submit that my right hon. Friend is wrong in those last few words. The first part of his remark is absolutely correct. The second part is certainly not true. I am going to give an example of how not only was a payment got away with Departmentally but also got away with politically.
It is especially interesting that it should be the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North who should make this protest today, because I think he was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the very time to which I am about to refer. I refer to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. The facts are these. The National Health Services had an estimated expenditure of £259 million.
"The Vote on Account for England and Wales proved to be inadequate"——
Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say from what volume he is quoting, so that we may follow?
Captain Waterhouse: The Fourth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 1950–51. This is important, and I feel I shall not weary the Committee by going into it in some detail.
The Report says:
"The Vote on Account for England and Wales proved to be inadequate and £5,000,000 was advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund to the Ministry of Health in July, 1949."
I ask the Committee to note these dates with great care.
"Before the end of October, 1949, it was clear that Supplementary Estimates would be needed for both Votes, but they were not presented until March, 1950.… The total provided from the Fund was over £100,000,000."
I would remind the Committee that between those two dates the House which should have been informed ceased to exist. There was a General Election. A new House was elected. I also remind the Committee that during that period the late Government were resting in the happy hope that they would be going to get away with an expenditure of about £250 million on health. In fact, when they got the bill for that year they found that it was going to cost something like £350 million. Let it not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite——
Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that that was right or that it was wrong?
4.30 p.m.
Captain Waterhouse: I am saying that it is a very happy event that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, who was Financial Secretary at he time, has now so changed his view on the rectitude of public finance that he is condemning now the possibility of doing the very thing which he did on such a tremendous scale four years ago.
Mr. Fletcher: I take it, then, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be supporting the Amendment.
Mr. Jay: I was not Financial Secretary at the time, and, while I speak from memory, I think that the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) will find that in the autumn of 1949 Sir Stafford Cripps made a statement to the House of Commons to the effect that large Supplementary Estimates would be necessary. Therefore, the House and the country were fully informed, which is the proper procedure in these cases. But I think that we all agree that, although they are sometimes necessary, large Supplementary Estimates are undesirable and should be limited if possible.
Captain Waterhouse: I think that we all agree on that point. My object in speaking was to draw an inference and to express a hope and to say that I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for having made the concession which enables the House at least to raise this matter, because we can raise a point on an order when we cannot on legislation.
That is valuable and is appreciated, but I express a real hope that between now and the end of this Parliament—which will be a good many years ahead—things will have so developed that the Financial Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reviewing the national needs, will be able to say with confidence that they can do with a materially smaller amount than the large sum which we are now asked to supply.
Mr. E. Fletcher: I apologise for the fact that unavoidably I could not be here on Friday when the Bill had a Second Reading, but since then I have had the advantage of reading the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am appalled at the situation which I find as a result of the introduction of this Bill. I do not regard

1329
the concession to which the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) referred as any concession at all.
I am in a slight procedural difficulty, because I was hoping to move and argue the Amendment which is on the Notice Paper in my name, in Clause 1, page 1, line 17, to leave out "seventy-five" and to insert "fifty," which, I think, raises an entirely separate point from the question which is raised on the Amendment now before the Committee. I believe that there is a totally different issue between us, both in relation to the amount and in relation to the time limit. But, as always, I am quite prepared to accept your Ruling, Sir Charles, and to say what I have to say on the Amendments which we are now considering, provided that I can reserve my right to move my Amendment formally when the time comes and ask the Committee to divide on it. I propose, therefore, to say what I have to say on the Amendments now.
I preface my remarks by saying that I am not inhibited by what happened between 1945 and 1950. I am really getting tired of hon. Members opposite, for example, the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East, trying to defend what the present Government are doing by saying that between 1945 and 1950 the Labour Government did the same kind of thing. I do not regard that as any excuse at all.
Captain Waterhouse: I was not defending what we are doing now by reference to what was done then, but congratulating the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) upon having changed his mind.
Mr. Fletcher: That really will not do. If any congratulations are to be paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I will join with any hon. Member opposite. I shall be second to none in wishing to do that, but in his speech on Second Reading my right hon. Friend adduced a series of arguments which were put forward by the Minister of Education, the Minister of Works, the Lord Privy Seal and I do not know who else, though I do not think that the Patronage Secretary was included. They, when they were in opposition, pointed out how monstrous it was to have this Civil Contingencies Fund at an inflated figure.
1330
I am not arguing in the slightest whether that was or was not justified between 1945 and 1950. I was not a Member of the Labour Government then and the circumstances were completely different. In those days there was a very inefficient Opposition, and it may well be the case that the Government of those days got away with it qua Government vis-à-vis the House of Commons.
This is a matter between the House of Commons and the present Government, and we are not considering the possible successes or failures or misdemeanours or anything else of a previous Government. We are considering what should be done now and in the future to ensure that this House of Commons has complete financial sovereignty over the acts of the Government. I am sure that you, Sir Charles, in your capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, would agree that this is the essential prerogative of the House of Commons and we should be failing completely in our duty if we did not take every step to ensure that the Government do not, by any kind of device or chicanery, get away with some method which enables them to incur some expenditure and pay for some service without Parliamentary provision.
I regard a Civil Contingencies Fund of anything like £75 million as not merely unnecessary but quite grotesque. In the old days it was £l½ million. The Minister of Education and the Minister of Works think that £5 million would be adequate. My Amendment would reduce the figure which is proposed in the Bill to £50 million. I have suggested a reduction because that is the appropriate way for the Committee to, express its disapproval of what the Government are doing.
Let us examine the whole machinery whereby the House of Commons is able to consider the financial acts of the Government. It would be quite wrong for this Civil Contingencies Fund to be used as a device to enable the Government to incur or meet some expenditure for which there was no express Parliamentary approval. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said, in origin and in essence the Fund is intended as a form of petty cash, a mere £1 million or so, to cover some quite unforeseen contingency which might arise such as a national flood disaster, and

1331
similar circumstances in which the Government cannot ask the House of Commons for an express sum.
In other financial spheres every item of expenditure has to come before the House. Only a short time ago, the Patronage Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box, at about a quarter to four, and gave notice that he would propose a Motion on Tuesday next that the House should resolve itself into Committee to consider some Supplementary Estimates for the Services —£70 for the Army, £60 for the Air Services and £80 for the Navy.
It is very proper that that should be done, because these sums should not be voted until this House has, in accordance with the recommendation of the Patronage Secretary, resolved itself into Committee of Supply in order to have the opportunity, not merely of deciding whether we should vote £70 for the Army, £60 for the Air Services or £80 for the Royal Navy, but of considering why these Supplementary Estimates are required and what is the policy on which they are based.
I ask the Committee to consider the scale of the matter. That is the old historic method by which the House controls and supervises expenditure on the Armed Forces, which cannot spend another £60, £70 or £80 without coming to this House. Per contra, what is the Financial Secretary now asking us to do? He is asking us to give him £75 million a year—[Interruption.] Oh, yes; £75 million a year, year by year and year in and year out, without limit of time. Previously, the House used to have to approve the proposal every year. We had an opportunity of considering file matter year by year, and of deciding whether it was reasonable to give the Government £75 million or any other figure for contingencies.
In wartime, it may have been necessary, and in the immediate postwar period it may have been desirable, but in this Bill, as I understand it, the Financial Secretary is now asking for it indefinitely, without the annual review provided by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Indeed, it is really worse than that.
It seemed to me on reading the Second Reading debate that the Financial Secretary did not really understand what he
1332
was doing. When he was reading from his prepared brief, he made a speech which, though I do not want to flatter him, was really an intelligible contribution to the debate. As soon as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) interrupted him to ask what I think was the only sensible question put from those benches, the Financial Secretary gave a very flippant and casual reply. I do not know whether it was correct or not, and the Financial Secretary himself did not know whether it was correct or not, because when he came to speak later he said he did not know whether it was right or wrong. Even now we do not know, and I hope that before the debate finishes we shall know and have the matter made clear. It is most important.
Is the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South satisfied? I am not. What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say on Second Reading? In effect, he said that if we agree to the Government having £50 million, £75 million or any other figure for contingencies, the House would want to know whether that sum could be spent in the financial year in question, or ought the Government to introduce a Supplementary Estimate in order that the money might be repaid in the same financial year? The Financial Secretary replied:
"No, that is not necessarily 50.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1955; Vol. 543, c 663.]
When he came to address the House later, he said he was not sure whether what he had said was right or wrong, and he very much hoped that he had not misled the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am not particularly concerned about that. It is for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to decide whether he is satisfied or not. I am only concerned to know whether the Committee as a whole is satisfied, because I am not satisfied.
As a result of reading the Second Reading debate, I am left in complete confusion, and nothing has been said today to clear it up. It is quite obvious, whatever the Financial Secretary may say, shorn of all technicalities, it would be quite idle for any Government spokesman to try to pretend that this device of asking for a petty cash figure of £75 million a year in continuity is not a device to enable the Government to avoid

1333
proper financial control and proper Parliamentary supervision of what they are doing. I do not like it at all.
4.45 p.m.
It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to sit there with a certain amount of smug complacency. I know that the Conservative Party has just returned from the polls with a certain majority, but that does not entitle it to ride roughshod over the House of Commons, and does not entitle it to ignore the cherished traditional rights of the Parliamentary Opposition. It is the duty of those who sit on these benches, more than ever before, in my belief, to look with the greatest vigilance and the greatest scrutiny at every item of legislation which this Government introduces. The more technical and the more complicated it is, the more necessary is it for my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, myself and various others to do everything we possibly can to make sure that the public are properly informed, advised and warned against the machinations of the Government in trying to do these things and get away with them.
I want to be fair to the Government. They did try to put up some semblance of a case to justify the increase of the Civil Contingencies Fund from £1½ million to £75 million. What did they say? The only reason given by the Financial Secretary was that in these days the Government have decided, as a matter of policy, with the approval of the House, to pay to farmers certain sums of money in respect of agricultural price guarantees. They said they could not tell from one month to another what the amount of these agricultural price guarantees would be, because they could not tell what the weather would be like. That is what the Financial Secretary said, but that argument will not wash.
It is possible to forecast from month to month, and, if necessary, we could be informed from month to month what the amount of the agricultural price guarantees would be, in precisely the same way in which, if the Army, Air Force or Navy wanted another £60, £70 or £80, the Patronage Secretary would move that the House should go into Committee of Supply in order that it could be considered. The House ought to have some opportunity, if necessary month by month, of considering whether these agricultural
1334
price guarantees are being properly or wisely administered.
I do not agree with this sum of £75 million for this year, let alone in continuity. The Financial Secretary himself said that last year £37 million was all that was wanted. He did not give a single reason for suggesting that he would want more than £37 million this year, and, in fact, and this is the real wickedness of this proposal, he is not asking for a sum which he might say is reasonable or might be reasonably forecast, but for the absolute maximum ceiling which he might want in any conceivable circumstances, in order to deprive the House of Commons of the opportunity of criticising what the Government propose to do. In my opinion, this is a vicious piece of Government legislation, and I do not think that the House of Commons ought to tolerate it.
I hope that both these Amendments will be supported by my hon. Friends on these benches. I think we should do two things. During the present year, we should limit this amount to something far below £75 million, though I had quite considerable difficulty when putting down the Amendments in suggesting an alternative figure, and in deciding whether it should be £50 million, £40 million or £25 million, or even the figure of £5 million which was suggested by the Minister of Education. I put down £50 million out of consideration for the obvious difficulties in which a newcomer to the Treasury finds himself.
I understand the difficulties of the Financial Secretary, and I sympathise with him. He is not entirely master in his own house, but has to take orders from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government, and he may not fully understand his brief. He cannot answer questions, whether they come from his own hon. Friends or from hon. Members on these benches. But I do not wish to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman more than is necessary; I want to be kind to him.
The function of the Opposition in this Parliament is to provide constructive and critical opposition. That is our duty. We do not intend to harass the Government for the sake of harassing them, but we intend in the interest of the public generally to criticise the Government when they are doing things of this kind.

1335
We shall pull them up and see that they do not get away with it.
Speaking for myself, I am prepared to give the Financial Secretary the benefit of the doubt. I know he cannot tell what the weather is going to be next week or the week after, or whether it is going to rain for the Test Match or whether the farmers will want more money or less. I suggest the figure of £50 million for the reason that on the arguments put forward by the Financial Secretary the sum of £50 million is the maximum he could want. I can understand him putting the case for giving the Government some margin, but I cannot accept there is any possible case for giving the Government a figure far and above the total which they may conceivably want in order that during the whole of that time they will be kept free and immune front Parliamentary criticism. I would add this. We do not know very much about this Government's legislative proposals.
Mr. Hale: Nor do they.
Mr. Fletcher: They do not seem to know themselves. There were a lot of pious expressions in the Gracious Speech, but it is obvious that in this Parliament there is going to be an abundance of Parliamentary time within which Members of Parliament on both sides, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East can help the House to revert to its traditional and ancient function of criticising the administrative actions of the Government.
I was interested in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. He quite rightly says there is a conflict between administratative convenience and financial control. But where is the divide? The divide ought not to be between the Government benches and the Opposition benches, but between all Members of Parliament interested in financial control and the Government in charge of administrative convenience. It is the duty of all Members of Parliament, including Conservative back benchers, to criticise the Executive and the Government of the day.
I beg leave to be allowed to pursue this subject because it is vitally important. In the last Parliament the Government had a
1336
very slender majority, and because of that it was perhaps excusable for them to neglect the ordinary, time-honoured functions of all back benchers, one of which is to be particularly critical about financial expenditure by the Government of the day. In this Parliament there will be no such excuse.
Hon. Members have spoken of inflation and the high level of Government expenditure. I could say a great deal about it. One reason Government expenditure has steadily gone up and up and become less and less controlled is that hon. Members opposite have failed in their duty to support us on these benches in being critical on every possible occasion and in seeing that Parliamentary control over Government expenditure is fully and faithfully observed.
Captain Waterhouse: I do not know why we are getting this lecture from the hon. Gentleman, because my hon. and right hon. Friends have constantly raised points with the Government and we have had satisfactory responses, very different from the responses we had when we raised similar problems at the time hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power. The hon. Gentleman should not lecture us.
Mr. Fletcher: I make no apology whatever for lecturing hon. Gentlemen opposite. In fact, it is my duty to do so, and as I feel very strongly about it I intend to pursue it.
I was very conscious of this subject during the last Parliament, in which the Government had a slender majority, just as there was a small Government majority in the Parliament of 1950–51. It was partly due to this state of affairs in those successive Parliaments that there was a very considerable falling away from the primary historic duty of the House of Commons as a whole to criticise as effectively as it possibly could on every occasion the financial expenditure of Her Majesty's Government.
I think I am entitled to make that criticism, because in the 1945–50 Parliament, when the Labour Party had a considerable majorty, there were numerous occasions on which Labour back benchers did not hesitate to criticise the Government of the day about matters of financial control. This is precisely the kind of Parliamentary occasion on which I

1337
should have thought we were entitled on these benches to expect, nay to demand, support from hon. Members opposite.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South, on Second Reading, had the courage to get up and say what he thought. I admired him for his courage, and I hope that before we have finished with this debate —I do not know how long it will go on, but I hope a number of Members from both sides of the Committee will take part because this is a matter of first-class Parliamentary importance—as a result of pressure from both sides of the Committee, the Government will give way.
Already in this Parliament we have found concessions being made on other Bills. Numerous concessions were given during the Committee stage of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and also by the Law Officers of the Crown in the County Courts Bill.
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is going far from the Amendment we are discussing.
Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate I might be travelling too far even by way of analogy, but I was intending to use these analogies for the purpose of reinforcing the argument I am attempting to stress. I am not endeavouring to lecture on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East. It would be presumptuous of me to do so. I would not dare to attempt anything of the kind. All I am trying to do in all humility is to say that in this Parliament we are in a new atmosphere because, as a result of the verdict of the electorate, the Government has a good working majority.
I do not want to get out of order, but I want to try to secure the support of such of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are present in this Committee. This is the first occasion in this Parliament on which this issue of the duties of Members of Parliament on whatever side they sit to control the financial expenditure of Her Majesty's Government has arisen. It is for that purpose that these Amendments are put down. I said something about the merits of the precise argument when your predecessor was in the Chair, Sir Rhys, but I am now trying to argue that the merits of these
1338
Amendments are such as I would have thought would have commanded the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member discusses the merits, he will be in order, but the further extension of the argument has nothing to do with the Amendment.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to extend the argument and I do not want to traverse what I have said, Sir Rhys. I was dealing with the observations of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East, in which he pointed out the conflict between administrative convenience and financial control.
I was saying that this is not a matter which divides Government from Opposition but one which divides Members of Parliament as a whole from the Treasury. I would have hoped that for that reason the Financial Secretary would not have taken an inflexible, rigid, non-possumus attitude. Neither of these Amendments is frivolous. Each is inspired by Government supporters in the interests of preserving proper Parliamentary supervision over Government expenditure. I should have thought that was a matter which would have commanded some response and some respect even in the breast of a Financial Secretary. However, I do not want to labour the point any further. I hope I have made it sufficiently clear, and I hope that the arguments will find favour even with the Treasury Bench.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am certainly not taking a non-possumus attitude—"possum" is written all over the Amendments I have put down on the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was good enough to say that he did not wish to embarrass me. Let me assure him that he did not embarrass me when he said that I had not put up the semblance of a case for increasing the Civil Contingencies Fund from £1½ milion to £75 million. That is not what I am doing. I am proposing to diminish it from £126½ million, at which it was left by the previous Government, to £75 million. I am proposing to knock off about 40 per cent.

1339
The Amendments under discussion deal with two separate points: the amount which it is right to fix as the ceiling for the Fund and the time for which we should fix that ceiling. Some of the arguments used from the other side of the Committee have been contradictory. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that it was reasonable to accept £75 million for the time being. Some of his hon. Friends devoted the greater part of their speeches to arguing that it was not reasonable to accept that.
Mr. Jay: That is not quite what I said. I said that it was reasonable and moderate of us to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on the subject.
Mr. Brooke: I will direct my remarks to the two different aspects of the Opposition Amendments. First, may I say, in passing, that the Amendment now before the Committee in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North is defective in its wording and would not bite unless further Amendments were made. However, I will not rest on that as the only reason for advising the Committee not to accept it.
Mr. Hale: As I drafted this Amendment may I point out that it is copied precisely from the various other Acts in which the date was extended. One was 1950, another was 1952. Exactly the same method was used in both those Acts to extend the period from the existing date to the new date. Therefore, I would be grateful to know what alteration has taken place in the laws of construction of Acts of Parliament?
Mr. Brooke: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that those previous Acts did not include any of the repeals which stand in the Second Schedule to this Bill.
As I have said, the Amendment was borrowed from the suggestions thrown out last Friday on Second Reading by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). In replying to that debate, I said that I would readily give consideration to it. The point was not raised in the main Opposition speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, but he evidently picked up from our side of the House what he thought
1340
was a better idea than any he had at the time, and he has incorporated it in this Amendment.
I have given the matter careful consideration because I appreciate what is in the minds of many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. That is, that it is doubtful whether Parliament should fix for an indefinite period any given ceiling for this Fund. What I would find difficult to accept in this Amendment, and what I had to criticise when my right hon. and learned Friend threw out the suggestion, was that there is no special reason to suppose that 1958 will be the precisely right moment to look at this again. Indeed, some of the speeches from the other side of the Committee today have indicated that this matter ought to be under continuous review and not simply brought up every three years.
So far as I can judge, therefore, there is no special reason to suppose that 1958 would be the right moment to review it, any more than 1957, 1959 or 1962. That is how I came to seek whether there was some way which would give Parliament a more continuous and more flexible power of control.
I must say, in all seriousness, that if we were to write into this Bill today a three-year limit, it might be taken to suggest that there was some reason for Parliament to think that in three years' time the position will have changed.
Mr. Jay: Does the Financial Secretary think that anybody drew that inference from the fact that we wrote a two-year limit into the 1950 Bill?
Mr. Brooke: I said on Friday that so far as could be judged now—and most of the wartime arrangements have now vanished—the figure of £75 million will remain a proper ceiling for this Fund as long as the general level of Government civil expenditure remains of its present order of magnitude, and so long as Parliament continues the present system of agricultural support.
As I have said, however, I think there was force in the argument that it would be wrong to put on to the Statute Book an Act which seemed to suggest that the £75 million was permanent and immutable. Indeed, I used in my speech the other day words which I intended as a firm pledge that the Government would

1341
keep this under review, and would be prepared to bring forward new legislation if experience showed, or some change in circumstances proved, that this figure ought to be revised. The purpose of my Amendments, which I hope the Committee will prefer to the one in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, is to ensure that this can genuinely be kept under review and that action can be taken at any moment when it seems desirable to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman criticised the course of action which I was advocating by saying that no discussion will arise unless the Government want it to do so. With respect, that is not the case. The essence of my proposal is that there shall be power by Order to reduce the ceiling below £75 million at any time. Perhaps we got into some confusion about this earlier in the debate. Surely I am right in saying that it would be out of order for any hon. Member to raise on the Adjournment the suitability of the present level of the Fund under existing legislation, because that could not be altered without legislation, but if we write into the Bill a provision that changes can be made by Order, it will surely be quite proper for any hon. Member to raise on the Adjournment the proposition that the Government should use their power to make an Order and effect a change.
Another important point which seems to have been overlooked in a number of speeches which have been made is that the body which Parliament specifically charges with a special responsibility for watching matters like these is the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, it was in June last year that the Public Accounts Committee took evidence about the Civil Contingencies Fund. So far as I am aware, the Committee made no comment, in its Report to the House, which indicates that, at any rate up to that date, the Committee had been satisfied with the conduct of the Fund during the lifetime of the present Government.
The Public Accounts Committee can call for evidence on this matter at any time and can report to the House at any time, and if something has been going wrong, if there has been any misuse, surely the Public Accounts Committee is the mostly likely body of all to detect
1342
it. Certainly, no Government would treat lightly a report from the Public Accounts Committee either that there had been abuse of the Fund or that the Fund appeared to be of such magnitude as to give too large a margin of manoeuvre to the Government.
The right hon Member for Battersea, North is quite wrong when he says that under my proposals the whole matter would be taken out of the hands of the House. I am trying to put it right into the hands of the House; that is what I am most of all desirous of securing. I am extremely grateful for the words which were used by my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse). in expressing their appreciation. I endorse all that they said about the value of real Parliamentary control.
I would say, in passing, that despite all the words that have been used from the other side this afternoon, when I took this matter through towards the end of last year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, not one right hon. or hon. Member opposite rose to question the continuance of the Fund for a further year at £126½ million.
Mr. Hale: At what time of the day was it?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is active and conscientious in his attendance at the House, and he does not miss much no matter what time of the night or morning it is.
The one thought that really troubles me when I hear it expressed in the House is the suggestion that there may be some conflict of interest between Parliament and the Treasury in the matter of control of finance. I wholly agree that Parliament must have the closest control over finance, and it is entirely in the interests of the Treasury that that should be so. The Treasury makes mistakes from to time to time—nobody will deny that—but if expenditure by Government Departments generally is to be effectively supervised and controlled, surely the House of Commons and the Treasury must be working together in this and neither should treat the other as an enemy.

1343
5.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Islington, East desires to move that the ceiling should be reduced from its present figure of £126½ million to £50 million. I argued the case last Friday for putting it at £75 million, and I have gone further to meet him today by suggesting that, instead of leaving it at £75 million as a permanency, we should take powers by which it can be further reduced, though not increased, by Order.
I remember that when presenting the figures to the House on Friday I pointed out that last year the peak demand on the Fund was about £37 million, but we were helped by the fact that on agricultural Votes there was an unexpected saving of £13 million through the cereals guarantee not requiring so much money as had been allowed for. If the difference of £13 million had gone the other way, as it might well have done through some unexpected turn in cereal prices, then the demand on the Fund might have been not £37 million but £37 million plus £26 million, a total of £63 million.
It is not, of course, only for the reason of agricultural price guarantees that we require the Fund. If the hon. Gentleman will again read my speech of last Friday he will notice that I drew attention to the fact that there were four or five separate purposes for which the Fund was needed. I would mention a further one which has been reported to the House and is known to the Public Accounts Committee. It has never been adversely reported on, so I take it that it commends itself to the House.
It is the use of the Fund at the end of the year to enable Departments to maintain working balances. That is particularly important where a Department has to maintain accounts in a number of different places. In former days the custom was that over the turn of the year when, ex-hypothesi, Votes would be virtually exhausted, the balances were replenished by drawing more than was really needed from Votes which were going to be underspent during the year. The effect of that is artifically to swell the amount that appears to have been spent during the year.
The new method, which has been made possible since 1946, and is now in operation, is this. If it is necessary to re-
1344
plenish working balances over the turn of the year, instead of drawing the money from underspent Votes, the money is advanced from the Fund and then repaid after the turn of the year. The value of that is that it keeps the amount issued from the Exchequer very much closer to the actual amounts needed by the Departments during the financial year than would otherwise be the case. If it were not for this practice it would not be possible to treat the Exchequer issues as a reasonably exact record of what has actually been spent during the year.
That is a new use for the Fund which did not exist in the days when it was fixed at £1½ million, and that is a further reason why it is impossible now to revert to anything comparable with the former figures. The House is also well aware of the use of the Fund—I do not think it has ever been challenged—in the case of natural disasters and the like where it is desirable to make money available immediately.
For all these reasons, I submit to the Committee that we should not now fix a ceiling lower than £75 million. I say, frankly, that the £75 million is not, as has been suggested, a swollen figure, designed to look after every possible contingency. If there was unexpected expenditure in a great many directions during the year, the call might exceed £75 million, and we, or any other Government, might have to come to the House of Commons with an extra Consolidated Fund Bill. But for the moment I believe that £75 million is the right figure.
If the Committee will reject the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and accept the Amendments in my name, it will ensure both that the Government may at any time reduce the £75 million by Order, and also, that any right hon. or hon. Gentleman may, as the months and years go on, raise on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House a case for altering in some way our arrangements about these things.
Mr. Jay: I must say that I find the reply of the Financial Secretary quite inadequate, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) would say the same, if they expressed their candid opinion.

1345
The Financial Secretary falls back on the extraordinary argument that this is a point which anyone can raise on the Adjournment. I suppose it might be argued that one could table Questions to a Minister on any matter or raise any matter on the Adjournment. Under my proposal, it would be necessary for the Government to come forward with a Bill which would have to be fully debated, to which Amendments could be made and on which a vote could be taken. Then the Government would have to make out their case. Surely, that is the reality of Parliamentary control. To say that someone might be able to raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment is the shadow of Parliamentary control.
One might attempt to raise a subject on the Motion for the Adjournment, but it does not necessarily follow that one would succeed, because it depends on the selection of subjects by Mr. Speaker, and upon a ballot, and so forth. One might not be successful, and then the matter would be entirely out of the control of the House. Even were one successful, all that would happen would be that a brief debate woud take place, without an opportunity for Amendments to be moved, and the Government spokesman would have a few minutes in which to make his case. That does not seem to us to be the reality of Parliamentary control over expenditure, and I am sorry that the Financial Secretary should think it is.
Sir P. Spens: I apologise to my right hon. Friend and the Committee for not having been able to get to the Chamber in time to hear the beginning of the discussion.
When I saw the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) I was reminded of that well-worn Latin tag
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."
I thought that, on the whole, it was ill-founded and I rejoiced at the views expressed by hon. Members opposite, with all the fervency of converts, whom I welcome as having adopted the attitude which we on this side of the Committee have long taken up. I am glad that my speech last Friday has resulted in this debate. Nothing could be better than that the House of Commons should criticise very strictly any proposal relating to the Civil Contingencies Fund.
1346
The actual question before the Committee at the moment is whether or not the suggestion which I put out, or which was intended to be embodied in the Amendment of the Opposition, that there should be a three-year period and a Bill brought up, is better than the more flexible procedure proposed by my right hon. Friend. I would say, frankly, that my right hon. Friend has convinced me, both that £75 million is at present the right figure and that the more flexible procedure is that the Treasury should be a watchdog on the demands. I entirely endorse what he said about that, and of there being little or no conflict between this House and the Treasury when the Treasury acts in such a way.
I believe that the more flexible procedure provides the better solution at present, and I hope that long before the three-year period is up we shall have at least one Order, if not more, reducing the £75 million to a much lower figure.
Mr. Hale: I was shocked at the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). I thought that we were about to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman a demonstration of courage and determination in the interests of pure finance which would electrify the Committee and give confidence to the nation. But he came in late, and even expressed his apology partly in Latin.
I wish to say a word or two arising out of what has been said by the Financial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was out of order. He was asked to say why, in view of the fact that it was framed in precisely the same terms as an Act which was produced a couple of years ago. Had the right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was poor, or rather dubious in its terms, I should have accepted that. It was with great reluctance that I drafted it in precisely the same terms as the Parliamentary draftsman had used in precisely the same difficulty on two or three previous occasions when the date was extended from 1946 to 1950, from 1950 to 1952, and from 1952 to 1954.
In each case the method was used of referring to the previous Act referring to the previous Act having altered the previous Act, and so on, thus creating a great nuisance for anyone who wished to find out what is the law at present. I

1347
have never understood why we have to use this method—in which we are always referring to sixteen Statutes one by one—to find out what is the law. But this method having been used for so long, I felt that I should not alter it.
I gather that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that this Amendment is out of order because he has some proposal, relating to the Second Schedule, for amending the same Clause. No one would dispute that if the Committee carried one Amendment, it would be unwise to carry the other. But at the moment we are discussing only one Amendment, which is in unexceptionable terms, and if we carry it the Committee would not seek to make a conflicting Amendment in some other part of the Bill.
We must clarify what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman. He argued that it is no use saying that the House of Commons has no power and control over these items. He said that we have the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. When points of difficulties arise, obviously the House could exercise its duty as a watchdog. Collectively, hon. Members could watch and bark——
Mr. Ede: Or bite.
Mr. Hale: Yes, or bite. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend.
The point which we are attempting to make, and which the right hon. Gentleman consistently ignores, relates to the method of presenting accounts today. It may be that it has gone on for some time, but I have always found it difficult to follow. Recently, the procedure has been altered and we have less opportunity of discussing the matter in detail. The method is now so fantastic that it is impossible for anyone to find out what the figures mean—unless he employs a chartered accountant, a couple of clerks, and a ferret.
I have here a White Paper, published today, in which specific reference is made to charges on the Civil Contingencies Fund. Under the heading, "K.1.—National Milk Scheme" the original estimate is "nil." The revised estimate is £3,450,000, and the additional sum required is £3,450,000. Under the heading, "K.2.—Welfare Foods" the original estimate is "nil," the revised estimate is
1348
£923,000 and the additional sum required is £923,000.
Against both those items is an asterisk directing attention to a footnote, which states:
"A sum of £15,000 as been advanced"—
that is, £15,000 against the total of £4,373,000—
"from the Civil Contingencies Fund in respect of these services, and a corresponding amount of this Vote is required to enable repayment to be made to that Fund."
I shall be surprised if anyone in the Committee—except, of course, the right hon. Gentleman himself. who, no doubt, has these matters at his fingertips—can tell us what it means and whose fantastic idea it is.
It may be something to do with the mystery that there was once a Ministry of Food and a Ministry of Agriculture, and that now we have a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Or it may be that the appropriate bills have not yet been passed. But we are reaching a stage when it is a matter of extraordinary difficulty for anyone to know what is happening. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is a man of the utmost financial probity. I do not suggest anything against his character, but it makes the whole thing more suspicious. I am sure that anyone who found himself at the Old Bailey on a financial charge, and who gave as many different explanations as have been given about this matter, would have precious little chance with a jury.
5.30 p.m.
Of course, having delivered a speech in which he talked about the five-course meal which he was going to have, he shoved in an additional course right at the end. He said that the most important thing about this Fund is the fact that we can issue balances at the end of the year to try to keep the general expenditure of all Departments more in conformity with the actual amount and not force them to make premature assessments.
I can find no specific reference to that at all in the foreword which the right hon. Gentleman drafted to the Civil Contingencies Fund Accounts, 1953–54. It is quite true that he said that the Fund was also to be
"used to meet payments for various miscellaneous items not appropriate to any specific Vote of Parliament."

1349
What does that mean? When the right hon. Gentleman said that we must have money available for flood damage schemes, one can understand that.
The fact is that we are getting to a situation in which I do not think that anyone knows what we are voting today, except that we are giving the Government £75 million a year to put in the petty cash box. That money is to provide for the various blunders, miscalculations, faulty assessments and any excesses they may make. Even then, they are not in a position of the average man. They are entitled to take credit for the mistakes they have made on the other side.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, they already have balances in their favour. He said that the Government had a profit of £13 million last year on subsidies for farmers because the weather was good. But it might have been the other way round. Who would know when they conduct their affairs like this? In my view, it is eminently unsatisfactory. The position is really one of increasing gravity.
The right hon. Gentleman made the point, and he keeps on making it—it is a point which it is being made ad nauseam—that of course, in the very complicated financial circumstances immediately following the war, substantial sums were needed for contingencies. Of course, when we had to wait to hear what the President of the United States was going to do about Lend-Lease, we had to have funds available to meet quite extraordinary and unusual difficulties. That is true, and I concede it. But when the right hon. Gentleman goes on further and says that some of us did not take up this specific attitude five years ago—I do not know whether that is true; I have not turned up my observations, but I believe that they have been consistent—I would point out that in those days there were people on the Government Front Bench whom we could trust with the nation's money. That is the difference.
Surely there is a profound psychological difference between having people in whom one has confidence handling the nation's purse and in having people whom one would not have handling the nation's purse if one could prevent it. That is why I regard it as serious. I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would press this matter to a Division, but in view of the betrayal of his principles by the right hon.
1350
and learned Member for Kensington, South and the fact that hon. Members opposite have announced their desire to act as watchdogs and to keep a most experienced eye on our public affairs, and in view of the fact that, again, we can count on no support in the matter from hon. Members opposite, it may be a waste of time to challenge the matter further.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 1, line 16, leave out "at any time."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
Amendment proposed: in page 1, line 17, leave out "seventy-five" and insert "fifty."—[Mr. E. Fletcher.]
Question, that "fifty" be there inserted. put and negatived.
Amendments made: in page 1, line 17, after "pounds" insert:
"or such lower amount as the Treasury may by order direct."
In line 17, leave out "for."
In page 2, line 3, leave out from "pounds)" to end of line 7 and insert:
"shall have effect as if the reference to that sum there were substituted a reference to a sum which, when added to the said permanent capital of one million, five hundred thousand pounds, equals the limit for the time being imposed by this subsection.
An order of the Treasury under this subsection may be varied by a subsequent order and any such order shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(WINDING UP OF ROAD FUND.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hale: I wish to say a few words on the Clause and I think that they should be said in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago. In referring to Clause 1, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would give an undertaking, and that the Committee ought to accept the undertaking, that they were prepared to do this, that and the other in three years' time. He said that we should accept that with-

1351
out demur, without criticism and without doubt.
As I said earlier, I do not for one moment challenge the personal probity of the right hon. Gentleman, and if he were likely to stay in his present office for the next three or four years and was allowed to carry out the undertaking, it might well be that we should not challenge it. But I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that we are discussing today the end of the Road Fund, which was introduced by Sir Eric Geddes in 1920 when that gentleman referred to it in moving terms as the most wonderful example of voluntary taxation in the whole of our history.
Sir Eric Geddes indicated both then and in Committee that motorists had almost welcomed the opportunity of submitting to a very substantial levy because the motoring interests realised that the country would need new roads. He said that they were prepared quite voluntarily to submit to this very heavy taxation in order to pay for them. That was the undertaking given by the Government at the time.
The motorists contributed £8 million in the years that followed by what Sir Eric Geddes called "voluntary taxation." The Road Fund has been since robbed by almost every successive Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first one was the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who despoiled it very heavily, and when the motor industry complained, and, indeed, when it suggested an alternative method of taxation, it found itself taxed both on petrol and on horse-power. And still the money was not spent on the roads. We were given to understand that the money was principally to be spent on new roads and not on maintenance. All these undertakings were given by men whom the country thought to be of the highest respectability and probity and who, from time to time, sat on the Government Front Bench.
Now the Road Fund has come to an end, but the motorists still go on paying their taxation. The money has never been spent on the roads. Successive Governments have introduced wonderful plans for the construction of roads, but scarcely anything has been done to bring this country up to the standard for which the motorists have paid—voluntarily we
1352
are told—for thirty-five years. As a specific and classic example of the proposition that every Opposition should be very careful indeed of accepting assurances of pious intentions for the future from any Government, it appears to me to be a point for consideration.
I refrain from voting against the Clause only because successive committees have reported that the position has now got to a stage when it would be almost impossible to revivify the Road Fund and redirect it to the purposes for which it was instituted and in respect of which pledges were made when the money was raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS ETC. ON GOVERNMENT STOCK.)
Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, to leave out from "and" to the end of line 46, and insert:
"the investments shall be placed to the Commissioners' account of unclaimed redemption moneys with the investments made by virtue of paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule to the Finance Act, 1921.
(7) The dividends received by the National Debt Commissioners on the investments of their account of unclaimed redemption moneys shall be placed to their account of unclaimed dividends, and any repayment by the Commissioners in respect of redemption moneys whether under subsection (4) of this section or otherwise shall be made out of those investments or, if they are insufficient, out of the account of unclaimed dividends."
I do not know whether it would be to the convenience of the Committee to take the other four Amendments to this Clause together, because they are all interconnected, Sir Rhys.
The Deputy-Chairman: If that meets the convenience of the Committee, so be it.
Mr. Brooke: Thank you, Sir Rhys.
This is a highly technical Clause which is designed for a fairly simple, and, I think, uncontroversial purpose, namely, to simplify the accounting and administrative arrangements relating to unclaimed dividends, unclaimed redemption money, and so on, on Government stock. Because the Clause is technical I fear that my explanation of the Amendments must be somewhat technical.
The present subsection (11) will make it possible to apply the main provisions of the Clause to stock on the Post Office

1353
Register by regulation, but until regulations for that purpose are made the old arrangements will continue to apply to unclaimed dividends, stock and redemption moneys from the Post Office Register. This would have an awkward effect, for the National Debt Commissioners would have to keep a separate account of investments representing the unclaimed redemption moneys derived from stock on the Post Office Register, instead of treating those unclaimed redemption moneys in the same way as other unclaimed redemption moneys under the Clause.
That would be necessary for two reasons—first, because, under the existing law the dividends from these investments of Post Office Register unclaimed redemption moneys would have to be accumulated in the unclaimed redemption moneys account instead of being placed, like other dividends from such investments under the Clause, to the unclaimed dividends account and secondly, because under the existing law, coupled with the Clause as unamended, late claims to Post Office Register redemption moneys could be satisfied only out of Post Office unclaimed redemption moneys, and not out of the general "pool" of unclaimed redemption moneys.
The five Amendments can be divided into two groups. The second and the fifth hang together, and also the first, third and fourth. The effect of the second and fifth Amendments will be that unclaimed redemption moneys derived from stock on the Dublin Register will be put in the same position as will apply, pending the making of regulations, to unclaimed redemption moneys on the Post Office Register. The existing law will continue to apply to the Dublin Register, and then a similar accounting problem would arise as in the case of Post Office Register moneys.
The effect of the first, third and fourth Amendments will be to make unnecessary this separate accounting for Post Office Register stock. The National Debt Commissioners, by virtue of these Amendments, will not have to keep separate accounts, or treat unclaimed redemption moneys according to origin. In fact, the two separate Amendments achieve the same result—one in the case of the Post Office Register, pending the making of regulations, and the other, without in any way affecting the activities of the bank,
1354
in the case of the Dublin branch of the Bank of Ireland.
I should like to explain why I believe it is best to take this action in relation to the Bank of Ireland in Dublin. As it stands, the Clause applies to the stock on the Register of that bank as well as to stock on the Registers of the Bank of England and the Belfast branch of the Bank of Ireland, exactly as do the pre-1922 Acts which the Clause amends. There would be practical advantages in applying the same provisions to stock on the Dublin Register as to the rest of the stock, but, as the Clause stands, it is open to the objection that it has an extra-territorial effect in altering the obligations of the Bank of Ireland in Dublin.
5.45 p.m.
This is a question which affects the National Debt Acts as a whole, and this is only a little corner of that large field. We think that the right course is to consider at greater length, in the broader context, the whole question of what should be done about the impact of the National Debt Acts upon the Bank of Ireland in Dublin. If we amend the Clause as I propose, the existing arrangements will, in the meantime, continue to apply in Dublin, and the whole larger question can then be looked at at the same time, and we shall not be prejudicing or pre-judging it in any way.
I should tell the Committee that the amount of stock involved is small, and that no appreciable practical inconvenience is suffered by proceeding in this way. I think this is the more dignified and sensible way of proceeding.
Mr. Jay: Can the Financial Secretary say why, if all this is so sensible and innocuous, it has never been done before?
Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me about the Clause as a whole. I cannot say why it was not done in the time of the right hon. Gentleman's Government. I can say that it has now come to my notice, and that it seems to me a very desirable action to take, because, so long as we go on being governed by these old Acts of 1870, which lay down conditions and regulations which may have been quite proper in the state of affairs which then existed, we are now, in modern times, giving a

1355
great number of people in the Bank and the National Debt Office unnecessary work. As I explained during the Second Reading Debate, the Clause will in no way impair or alter the rights of members of the public—and that is what we need to be most concerned about. It will effect a considerable saving in clerical work and manpower.
Mr. Jay: Has not the present Chancellor been in office for four years? Can we be told why he did not introduce this provision in his early years at the Treasury?
Mr. E. Fletcher: I find this a most surprising procedure. I not only do not know why this was not done for four years, but why it was not done in the Bill as originally drafted. Why has this matter been left until the Committee stage? During the Second Reading debate the Financial Secretary said:
"Finally, Clause 5, which is the longest Clause, deals with perhaps the simplest matter of all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 668.]
Now, a few days later, he moves a series of complicated Amendments, couched in the most obscure language, with a verbose explanation which I doubt whether he or anybody else understands.
The right hon. Gentleman is not treating the Committee with consideration. This is a Bill of considerable importance, and in such a case the Government should treat hon. Members with courtesy by considering the Bill before introducing it, and getting Government spokesmen to explain it fully during the Second Reading debate. It is not fair to ask the Committee to consider a complicated series of Amendments of this kind after the very curious explanation we have had from the Financial Secretary. We shall have to do the best we can to try to understand it.
Has the Bank of Ireland been consulted about this matter? How does this provision affect depositors in Eire, in Post Office savings accounts? Have the Government of Eire been consulted in any way? Are they affected by the Amendments? Do they affect English people living in England, or their relatives, who may have Post Office accounts in Ireland? What about these unclaimed balances? Suppose they are to be claimed at some future date? Why should they be accumulated in this way? What difference will
1356
result from this amendment of the Clause, from the point of view of those who may have some unclaimed money in a Post Office account, in England or Ireland, which he had not known about but had discovered at some future date? We want a far fuller explanation from the Financial Secretary before he asks the Committee to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 26, at end, insert:
(11) Subsections (2) to (6) of this section shall not apply to stock entered in the books of the Bank of Ireland kept in the office of their Accountant-General at Dublin or moneys due on any such stock, and, subject to subsection (7) of this section, Part VII of the National Debt Act, 1870 (except sections sixty-three and sixty-five), and paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule to the Finance Act, 1921, shall continue to apply thereto.
In line 33, leave out "(7)" and insert "(6)."
In line 35, after "section" insert "except subsection (7)."
In page 6, line 1, leave out "subsection (11)" and insert:
"subsections (11) and (12)."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. E. Fletcher: It is impossible for me to do justice to this Motion in view of the unexpected and very complicated Amendments that have been proposed, and as I have not had the benefit of the Financial Secretary's replies to the questions I put to him.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I acquit the Financial Secretary of any intended discourtesy in not attempting to answer the questions I put to him. I realise that he is a very courteous Minister and that if he had been able to answer the questions he would have undoubtedly done so. Presumably, he did not know the answers. The only course we can adopt is to reserve our right, after considering what the Financial Secretary said when we have read it in HANSARD, to examine it further on the Report stage.
Mr. H. Brooke: I am very anxious to be courteous to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee. The purpose of the Clause is to simplify the procedure regarding the keeping of accounts on unclaimed dividends and redemption moneys on Government stock. I explained that on

1357
Second Reading. The Committee has been good enough to accept a group of Amendments which I have moved, all of which I submitted because they concern matters which had come to my attention, and I felt that they would improve the Bill.
One group was intended to ensure that for these unclaimed sums standing on the Post Office register there would not have to be separate accounts kept, pending the making of regulations, The other group concerned stocks on the Dublin Register of the Bank of Ireland. I endeavoured to explain that it seemed to me that the right thing to do was not to start cutting up this little bit of the field of the application of the National Debt Acts, which were passed long before 1922, to the Dublin branch of the Bank of Ireland. It seemed better that we should handle the whole of this big question in an integral way when we come to it rather than take off a little bit of it here.
I am not anxious to prejudge what the final solution should be. These Amendments have been accepted, but everything will go on just as before with the stock on the Register of the Bank of Ireland. There is no great amount of these unpaid moneys on that register, so that no great harm will be done if we leave this matter for further consideration when we come to the larger question of the application of the National Debt Acts.
Mr. Hale: We have been asked to amend a very long and very complicated Clause by the inclusion of a substantial number of Amendments, some of which refer back to other Amendments. I have in mind subsection (11), which reads:
"Subsections (2) to (6) of this section shall not apply to stock entered in the books of the Bank of Ireland kept in the office of their Accountant-General at Dublin or moneys due on any such stock, and, subject to subsection (7) of this section, Part VII of the National Debt Act, 1870 (except sections sixty-three and sixty-five), and paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule to the Finance Act, 1921, shall continue to apply hereto."
The Irish are a proud race. It is precisely this kind of matter over which we lost the American colonies. [Laughter.] Yes, it may be only a question of degree.
Perhaps no one will mind about this. The Americans did not object so much about the tea. They objected to taxation without representation. What right has this Committee to say, "We are
1358
about to legislate in regard to the Accountant-General at Dublin and what is kept on the books of the Bank of Ireland"? It may be that if we understood the Clause we should not doubt it, and that if we knew what we were discussing we should not be so concerned. If we had an explanation of precisely what was happening we might not have to raise it in this way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who always speaks with moderation and courtesy, put questions to the Financial Secretary. He asked whether the Government of the Irish Republic and the Bank of Ireland had been consulted. I cannot imagine two more reasonable questions than these, "If we are legislating about entries in the books of the Bank of Ireland, have we consulted the Bank of Ireland? If we are legislating about what is kept in the office of the Accountant-General at Dublin, have we consulted the appropriate Minister in Eire, who is responsible for the conduct of the Accountant-General in Dublin?" Surely those are reasonable questions. If they are not to be answered I hope that we shall have an opportunity on the Report stage of studying more carefully whether we have the opportunity of sending an appropriate expression of regret to the authorities in Dublin in respect of this matter.
Mr. E. Fletcher: Before we part with this Clause may I repeat my questions? Have the Government of the Irish Republic been consulted? Has the Bank of Ireland been consulted?
6.0 p.m.
Mr. H. Brooke: The Bank of Ireland is well aware of the meaning of the wording of the Clause. The Bill as originally drafted had extra-territorial effects. It was exactly that point which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was raising. In so far as it affected the Dublin office of the Bank of Ireland, the Clause, as it stood, had extra-territorial effects. As a matter of ordinary courtesy, we have been in touch with the Government of Ireland on this point. I am not wishing to suggest that the Government of Ireland carries any responsibility for these Amendments which I have put down, but in view of all our knowledge, and for the reasons which I have stated, we believe that the implica-

1359
tions of the National Debt Acts—which are pre-1922—for the Bank of Ireland should be considered altogether and not piecemeal. We commend to the Committee this Clause, as amended, as being the right way of approaching the matter.
Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman has said everything except to give an answer to my hon. Friend on the quite simple point of whether the Bank of Ireland and the Government of the Irish Republic have been consulted. He said that in one case they were aware of it and in the other that the Government were in touch. Did this Government actually consult the Bank of Ireland and the Government of the Irish Republic?
Mr. Brooke: I think that the right course is for any Governmental contacts to be with the Government of the Irish Republic rather than with any bank within the territories of the Irish Republic. As I have said, we have been in touch with the Government of the Irish Republic. They know about this, and we have drafted this Clause, not at their request or under their direction—nor can I say whether this is exactly as the Government of the Irish Republic would wish it to be done—but we have done this now because it seems to us that the right thing is to take out of this Clause anything which might have extraterritorial effects or might raise these large questions which are in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.
I suggest to the Committee that it would be far better not to go further on this extra-territorial ground in this Bill but rather to withdraw from it, as is the aim of these Amendments, and then, at a later stage, to pursue with the Government of the Irish Republic the much larger question of what should be done about the National Debt Acts which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, date back very many years—long before the formation of Eire or the Irish Republic—in their relation to the Dublin office of the Bank of Ireland. That will need to be done, but we are not doing anything of that kind in this Bill. We are leaving the Dublin office of the Bank of Ireland exactly as it was.
Mr. Ede: Then do I take it that all those words mean that the answer to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member
1360
for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher)—questions which I repeated to the right hon. Gentleman—is simply, in one word, no?
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)
Amendment made: In page 8, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert "Paragraph (i) of."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Bill reported, with Amendments.
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
Mr. E. Fletcher: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I beg to protest against the Bill, as amended, being now considered.
To me that seems to be an affront to the rights of the House of Commons. This Bill has been considerably amended in Committee by Government Amendments. We learned during the Committee stage that the Government had found it necessary to introduce a number of very complex, very obscure Amendments that they had not thought of but which arose from the Second Reading debate. There may or may not have been consultations with the Government of Ireland or with the Bank of Ireland. The Financial Secretary has tried to explain some of his Amendments by saying that the Bill, as proposed, had an extra-territorial effect, and that the Government of Eire were aware of the Amendments proposed.
We had the most diffident explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to exactly what had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Eire, but when he was questioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) it became quite obvious that a great deal more lay behind the Amendments than we had been told. We all know how sensitive the Irish people are about matters affecting the interests of Ireland. The Financial Secretary says that matters contained in the National Debt Acts go back to 1860 and 1870. The reasons he gave for these Amendments were quite unintelligible to us on this side of the

1361
House, and make it impossible, without reflection, to do justice to the important and fundamental questions arising between the two countries. Therefore, in the interests of the House of Commons, I protest against the Government's proposal that we should now proceed to consider on Report a Bill that has been very considerably amended in Committee by the Government.
In support of that proposition, I desire to quote the authorities. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Erskine May quite definitely lays down the procedure of the House in this matter. It is no doubt always possible for the House to control its own business, but you will recall that for a very long time, whenever a Bill has been substantially amended in Committee there is almost invariably an interval of a few days before the House is asked to comment on it at the Report stage.
That is the universal practice of the House, and if authority is wanted for that proposition I refer you to page 572 of Erskine May, 15th Edition. It there states:
"It should be remembered that when it is desired to tike forthwith the report stage of a bill which has been reported with amendments from a Committee of the whole House, a question for the consideration of the bill, as amended, has to be proposed; and the motion therefor has been withdrawn."
There have been various occasions when the Government of the day, with obvious good sense, if I may say so—because most Governments have had regard to the rights of the House of Commons—when a protest of this kind has been made, have withdrawn the proposition to proceed automatically from the Committee to the Report stage. Most Governments have recognised that it is not only the right but the duty of the House to scrutinise Bills of this kind, particularly when a Bill is not only of very considerable financial importance, involving considerations of Parliamentary control over Her Majesty's Treasury, but equally when involving matters which may be in dispute between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Eire. It is obviously desirable that the House should have the opportunity of reading in HANSARD what the Government spokesman has said.
Therefore, I have no doubt, speaking for myself, that I have only to make this
1362
protest, support it on its merits and quote precedent, to feel some confidence that the Government will accede to it. I am very glad that the Leader of the House has now arrived, because this is a matter which affects him. He is a great Parliamentarian and I will quote one important precedent for his consideration. I do not know whether the memory of the Lord Privy Seal goes back to July, 1918; I know that he has been in the House of Commons for a long time. In July, 1918, an exactly similar situation arose when a Bill called the Corn Production (Amendment) Bill [Lords] was before the House. Corn Bills have often been troublesome to Tory Governments.
That Bill was considered in Committee and a Motion was made by the Government of the day, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered." Protests were at once made by hon. Members of the Opposition of those days. Mr. D. White—I do not know what his constituency was—and Mr. Raffan pointed out how inconvenient it was and how it would derogate from the rights of hon. Members if they had to discuss the matter on Report without having the benefit of seeing the Bill reprinted as amended. Other hon. Members protested and as a consequence Mr. Prothero, the Minister of Agriculture at that time—a very distinguished Conservative Minister of Agriculture who, I believe, became a member of another place with the title of Lord Ernle—readily acceded to the protests and said:
"I should not like to go against the opinion of so many hon. Members, but I hope if we put the Bill down for next week the House will allow us to get it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th July, 1918; Vol. 108, c. 2093.]
In making this protest on behalf of hon. Members, I have no desire whatever to be obstructive. I desire merely to protect and preserve the rights of the House. Having made this protest, I hope that the Leader of the House will advise his colleagues not to proceed forthwith with the Report stage. We should then have an opportunity of reading the Bill, as amended, and considering in HANSARD the very obscure remarks the Financial Secretary has made as there would be an interval before we considered the Bill on Report.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The point made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E.

1363
Fletcher) is quite clear. If we are to consider the Bill forthwith the Minister must move a Motion to that effect which, of course, would be debatable.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshauk): I am not quite sure whether I am in order in saying anything at this point.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Minister will have to move a Motion; the Minister in charge of the Bill, or someone on the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
I do so to put myself in order, but I hasten to say that the Bill will not now be considered because we recognise the validity of the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). It was agreed that all stages of the Bill should be taken this week because the Bill is of some urgency, as the House will realise. Today, I announced the date when we are to rise for the Summer Recess. It is essential to get the Bill through both Houses before that date, but the protest made by the hon. Member is a valid one. If anyone makes such a point the Government must consider it seriously. If no one had objected we would have gone forward with the Bill.
The hon. Member has objected and he is quite within his rights to object. I am quite ready to agree that we should not proceed further today with this Bill, but we must put it down for consideration on whatever is the proper occasion next week, with a view to getting it through the House. I think the House can congratulate itself on the fact that we still have watchdogs and that the heroes of 1918 have been succeeded by perhaps even greater ones in 1955. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to an international agreement for the establishment and operation of an International Finance Corporation, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorize—
1364

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for making payments on behalf of Her Majesty's Government by way of subscription for shares of stock of the International Finance Corporation under the said agreement;

(b) the raising of money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing sums to be paid as aforesaid out of the Consolidated Fund, or of repaying to that Fund sums so paid;

(c) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by Her Majesty's Government from the said Corporation in pursuance of the said agreement;

(d) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer as aforesaid, and the application of sums so issued in redemption or repayment of debt, or, in so far as they represent dividends, towards meeting such part of the annual charges for the National Debt as represents interests.

Resolution agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(THE AGREEMENT AND THE CORPORATION.)
6.15 p.m.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I have no desire to be obstructive, but I wish to say by way of explanation that we have found it necessary, in view of the way in which the Bill has been drafted, to table new Clauses as the only way to deal with the question of amendment.
Speaking for myself, I am in this position: Clause 1 refers to the Agreement, which is embodied in the Clause, and, in a sense, covers the whole purview of the discussions we wish to have. Clause 2 refers to the financing of the Agreement so far as the Government are concerned, and the proposed new Clause —"Fair Conditions"—in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), myself and other hon. Members—which I understand, Sir Charles, you are to call—refers to the operating of the Agreement in Great Britain.
I have no desire to be obstructive nor to make a number of speeches, but there are a number of points which I think are of substance and importance which

1365
I wish to raise. Some of those points, technically, may fall to be considered under Clause 1 and some under Clause 2. I think the Economic Secretary to the Treasury would agree that it is almost impossible to say which come under Clause 1 and which under Clause 2, because Clause 1 has economic and Clause 2 has political implications on the same document. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say what I have to say now and refer to what was said on Second Reading.
On Second Reading, I referred to the question of the financing of the International Bank and to the consequent result of that method on this Agreement. I expressed some apprehension as to what had happened with reference to the Bank and made some observations on the figures. Insofar as I have been able to obtain figures, they reinforce the argument I then put, I believe they are figures of the greatest possible importance and gravity to this country. The basis upon which the Economic Secretary moved the Second Reading of the Bill was mainly that the International Bank is not entitled to invest in equities and cannot for that reason finance a private company. Therefore, where it is necessary to finance private enterprise, it must be done by a separate instrument constructed as a subsidiary of the International Bank.
That raises two immediate issues of importance. One is the question of the location of the Bank. It was always our case at Bretton Woods that it would be a bad thing if the headquarters of this Bank were in America. It would also be a bad thing if they were in the United Kingdom. There is no criticism of America in that view, for it is a bad thing if the Bank is in the territory of a very large country whose economic policies almost inevitably dominate its operations. The fact that that has happened is now beyond the dispute.
The second point which the Economic Secretary made was that this is intended primarily for economic investment in the depressed and underdeveloped areas. The answer is that it does not apply to the most impoverished areas of the world but only to the territories of the member countries of the International Bank, and, with the exception of China, which can be classed as an impoverished territory, the great mass of the undeveloped areas
1366
cannot be members because they have not the appropriate financial resources. The Economic Secretary added what is the rather tragic feature of this proposal; they cannot join this new organisation because under the new organisation they will have to join the main Fund and accept the obligations under that Fund.
Of course, there are reasons for this. I am not trying to be hypercritical. I appreciate the reasons for it. But it brings us to the very surprising position that when we are dealing with Colonial Territories or territories in respect of which we exercise authority, the loans made by the International Bank up to now—and they have been made only to the two Rhodesias—have had to be guaranteed by us because the Rhodesias are not members and cannot themselves give the necessary undertaking to the Bank. The loans, therefore, have had to be guaranteed by us and we have the situation in which colonial development is being carried out through an International Bank to which we contribute but which we have to guarantee.
I am bound to say that I fail to understand a system under which we develop Colonial Territories in this way, because we know that if we undertake a guarantee honestly, then we can find the finance to meet it. Many of my clients have been ruined by thinking that they could sign a guarantee without having the finance to meet it, and I warn anyone about accepting that point of view. It is Alice in Wonderland finance to say that the Rhodesias must go to Washington to get money in dollars and that we have to guarantee repayment in dollars.
I made some observations from memory and recollection about the main figures relating to this Fund. The figures for the International Bank are available only to 30th June, 1954, and the total amounts of loans made by the International Bank then amounted to just less than 2,000 million dollars. That is the original principal amount. The effective loans held amount to 1,662 million dollars. Presumably that allows for repayments. The principal amounts said to be dispersed are 1,400 million dollars.
It is, unfortunately, true that the bulk of the big loans have been made in substantial nations with substantial financial resources. The largest loan, 257 million

1367
dollars, is to Japan; the next largest, 229 million dollars, is to the Netherlands; and the next, 204 million dollars, is to Australia. I do not know the extent to which one could regard South America as undeveloped territory, although it has some terribly poor countries in it, but there have been very substantial loans to South America.
Without wishing unduly to criticise the International Bank, which is a good institution, there is no doubt that it has had to have regard to American political policy in making its loans and assignments. The large amount of the loans in South America is some indication of this.
I referred earlier to two features of this unhappy situation. The first is that when the loans are made in dollars it exaggerates the existing unbalance. I have no desire whatever to appear to be criticising America qua America. America is doing today what we used to do twenty years ago. Indeed, we did it more vigorously, because America is entitled to the credit for some extremely generous action in the last two years, such as the very generous financing of the Children's Fund and of many other United Nations agencies and a generous lead in U.N.R.R.A. after the war. In her foreign policy America is entitled to the respect of everyone for many generous payments. Nevertheless, this fact should not prevent us from criticising when there is ground for criticism.
The first criticism I would make is this: the utilisation of tariffs to restrict imports while flooding the world with exports means the creation of an unbalance which is gradually impoverishing the world. When I said that in general, I had no idea that when I examined the figures I should find such a reinforcement of the argument which I was making. Two loans have been made up to now in so-called undeveloped territories—and I apologise to Southern and Northern Rhodesia, which are the most highly developed territories in our part of the African Continent, but they are territories which are seeking to industrialise themselves rapidly. It is not easy to find the figures, and I do not doubt that I have not found them all, but by searching invaluable archives I was able to trace the loans which have been made to Southern
1368
and Northern Rhodesia for industrial purposes, outside those raised in the United Kingdom over this period.
It is important that I should preface these comments by saying that the Rhodesias deliberately and properly embarked on proposals for rapid industrial expansion. Indeed, the Governments which I had the honour to support in 1949 and 1950 approved the construction of the new railway to the gateway of Mozambique and the extension agreement with Portugal for the extension of that railway to Beira. Let me say at once that this railway has since been financed by the International Bank and I submit that it is clearly relevant to the Clause which we are discussing.
The Chairman: I do not think it is. This Clause merely defines the Agreement and the Corporation, and I do not think we can go into the details of the Agreement.
Mr. Hale: I am not going into the details of the Agreement, although I submit that I should be in order to discuss every word of the Agreement on the Clause.
The Chairman: I do not think so.
Mr. Hale: This is a very important point, Sir Charles, and I must ask you to listen to my submission upon it. I must refer to the terms of the Bill. You will remember that I prefaced my speech openly by making certain comments in my opening sentences. Perhaps your attention was diverted at the time and you did not hear what I said. I said there are certain observations which I have to make which will have direct reference to the terms of the Agreement incorporated in Clause 1. There are certain observations which I shall have to make which will refer to Clause 2—the question of the financing of the Agreement. There are certain observations which I shall have to make which will refer to the new Clauses, which I understand it is your intention to call.
It is abundantly obvious that it is virtually impossible for any human being to draw a line between these points, and I thought it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if I addressed them once on the generality of the matter.
May I make a submission on the very narrow point on which you have ruled?

1369
You have made a provisional Ruling that I shall be out of order in referring to the Rhodesian developments which are guaranteed by Her Majesty's Government under the International Bank.
The Clause we are discussing provides for a new Agreement under which every borrowing by any British Colony from the new Corporation will have to be guaranteed by the United Kingdom, because unless there is such a guarantee that loan cannot be made. I respectfully submit that there can be nothing more clearly relevant to the Clause than that. This is so important to my argument that I must respectfully submit——
The Chairman: I think it is very important but I do not think the Clause covers all that. It defines the Agreement and it defines what the Corporation means. That is all it does.
Mr. Hale: With great respect, the Clause provides that we should accept an Agreement. In the very unhappy drafting of the Bill, there is an unfortunate difference between the terms of this Clause and the terms of Clause 2. I have not a copy of the Bill in my hand, but one Clause refers to the Agreement as de facto and the other refers to it as something which may be agreed in the future.
I have a copy of the Bill now, and Clause 1 reads:
In this Act 'the Agreement' means any agreement which may be signed and accepted on behalf of Her Majesty's Government …"
Clause 2 reads:
"There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom all sums required for the purpose of making payments on behalf of Her Majesty's said Government under paragraph (a) of section 3 of Article II of the Agreement …"
I have no wish to make a purely technical point, but the fact is that Clause 2 refers to the Agreement as the Agreement de facto which is to become de jure on the passing of the Act, while Clause 1 refers vaguely to any sort of agreement we might propose to sign. If you feel, Sir Charles, that the observations I am making are more appropriate to Clause 2, and if you so rule, I can, of course, make them on Clause 2. I am dealing solely with the matters which were dealt with on Second Reading at great length and which provided the whole subject for discussion on Second Reading. I think
1370
that I ought to say in fairness to myself that I rose at once and made this very point in my opening sentences. I said it was impossible to say how many of the observations I have to make fall directly under Clause 2 and how many under Clause 1.
6.30 p.m.
In my view, they all fall under Clause 1, which refers to the Agreement which has been initialled and, I think, signed, and which sets out in great detail the whole of the provisions. I still say, having made that explanation to the Committee, that it is convenient, if we are to discuss a matter of some complexity and of great economic importance, that when an opportunity does arise I should speak collectively on the points at the outset instead of making a series of speeches. I should have thought that that was the most convenient way of dealing with the question, which I am sure the Economic Secretary will agree is one of difficulty of interpretation.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): My impression on reading the Bill is that Clause 1 is of very narrow definition. We had a wide discussion on the Second Reading last Friday. I did not expect that discussion to be repeated on Clause 1, which seems to be a very narrow Clause defining the Agreement and the Corporation.
The Chairman: I was of that opinion, too.
Mr. Hale: I thank you for your Ruling, Sir Charles. We are discussing whether Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 should stand part of the Bill. Under the rules of the House, it is clear that precisely the same rules apply to the consideration of the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" as apply to Second Reading. The limitation, of course is that a discussion on Committee stage has to be split up to deal with the relevant Clauses.
The Chairman: On Second Reading, one can say that one wishes something else to be put in or not. In Committee, if there is no Amendment to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we can only discuss what is in the Clause.
Mr. Hale: I submit that that applies to consideration of a Bill on Third Reading. It does not relate to the Committee stage. I say, with respect, that it never has been ruled in my experience that one cannot, in the wide ambit of a Committee discussion, discuss what is outside the Bill as well as what as in it. With very great respect, I must press this matter because, in my submission, this is a matter of great importance and this is the only opportunity which the Committee will have of discussing it. I must, therefore, press that with the deepest sincerity, and say that if the Committee is now being called upon to discuss Clause 1, which incorporates the Agreement, we can discuss whether the Agreement is right to be incorporated or not. Otherwise, I would say that this discussion makes nonsense of the Committee stage.
There are only two questions before the Committee. The first is whether we adopt the Agreement. The drafting of the Clause is misleading, but I hope that Clause 1 is better than Clause 2. The second is through what means the necessary funds are drawn in order to implement the Agreement. We are being asked to spend £5 million in pursuance of the Agreement, and the matter which I want to discuss is whether it is an Agreement on which we should spend £5 million. I submit that I am amply in order in doing that.
The Chairman: I disagree. Erskine May states, in page 538, that a
"Debate upon this question …"—
that is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"—
"must be confined to the clause as amended (or not amended), …"
Mr. Hale: Of course, I agree. It must be my fault, and I apologise sincerely to you, Sir Charles, if I have not made myself understood. I got up at the start and asked your leave, which I thought had been conceded. I said that instead of making three speeches I would make one for the convenience of the Committee. That has been done before. In the comments which I made I was proceeding to do that. I understand now that it is desirable that I should make three speeches separately, one on each Clause. Very well, but I suggest that it is for the convenience of the Committee that I should make one speech. I have no desire to obstruct.
The Chairman: I am sorry I did not stop the hon. Gentleman sooner. I wanted him to have time to develop his argument a little. This is perfectly clear. I do not lay down the rules; I am only here to carry out the rules of the House. It is clear that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we cannot discuss this.
Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman said just now that this Clause incorporates the Agreement. As I read it, it does not. It merely defines what is meant by this Agreement for the purposes of the Act. I submit that a Second Reading debate would not be in order on this Clause.
The Chairman: That is the point which I tried to make. It is really a definition Clause.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Can the Economic Secretary tell us whether there is an Agreement before us at all, or whether these are merely Articles of Agreement? The Clause says:
"… 'the Agreement' means any agreement which may be signed … in pursuance of Articles approved on the eleventh day of April …"
In the White Paper we find that it was approved on the seventh day of April, and it is described as Articles of Agreement. Is the Agreement the same as the Articles of Agreement, or is there no Agreement?
Sir E. Boyle: This is an Agreement that may be signed in pursuance of the Articles.
Mr. Jay: In that case, can the Economic Secretary say what is the Agreement referred to in Clause 2 and what is the relationship between that and Article II of the Agreement?
Sir E. Boyle: At first sight, I think that there is a little discrepancy, which I will gladly look into. I think that the word "Agreement" in Clause 2 (1) came from quoting the White Paper. I will gladly look into that point.
Mr. Hale: I called attention to this discrepancy half-an-hour ago and pointed out that there was a discrepancy between Clause 1 and Clause 2. I said that I did not want to take any technical advantage of it. I submit that as Clause 1 refers to some Agreement not yet signed but

1373
which may be signed, the meaning of Clause 1, as presented at the moment, whether it differs from Clause 2 or not, is this. The Clause states:
"In this Act 'the Agreement' means any agreement which may be signed and accepted on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in pursuance of Articles approved on the eleventh day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-five …"
There is no possible question about the meaning of that. That means that Her Majesty's Government have signed Articles which we have before us in the form of a White Paper, and which set out in some detail the general principles upon which Her Majesty's Government propose to act in implementing the expenditure of £5 million to which we have been asked to commit ourselves.
The Economic Secretary says that it is not an Agreement. The reasons why it is not an agreement are obvious. This is not a bilateral agreement; it is very much a multi-lateral agreement. Many parliaments and legislatures will have to discuss its terms and conditions, and there may be legislatures which permit full discussion of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, so that they can promote any legislation necessary. We are now being asked to pass Clause 1 and to give general authority to the Government to proceed roughly on the lines of the present Articles and to sign an Agreement which may extend or limit the Articles in any way in which the varying views of other nations who are parties to this may cause. I do not object to that. That is a limited matter which I will now proceed, if I may, to discuss, because I think that there are important issues arising from it.
The issues which open out are those of the sort of currency in which the Agreement will be implemented. Of course, the Committee may wish to pass the Clause and give a general option to the Government to proceed upon those lines, but certainly, if we propose to give them that wide authority, it would seem some expression of view of the limits that ought to be put on the intentions of the Government in this matter would be in order, and that it would be in order to make some observations of the sort of considerations that Her Majesty's advisers and confidential servants ought to have in mind when considering these matters.
I respectfully submit this, to you, Sir Charles, with every desire to be as respectful
1374
ful and courteous as I always feel the desire to be, not only out of respect for the Chair, but also for its present occupant. I have not minded whether the case I want to put were put on this Clause or Clause 2, or on one of the new Clauses, but this is the position. We are discussing a situation of very real complexity. We have established an International Bank. All that is past. That was ten years ago. We are making our contribution to the funds of the Bank, as an independent international body having its own extra-territoriality and a considerable measure of extra-judiciality.
The Bank is established. Under the rules of that Bank and under the terms of the Agreement, it is said, first, no one can come into this new organisation which this Bill hopes to seek to create: what we are doing is to express by the Bill our general agreement to the creation of a new subsidiary of the Bank, designed for separate, named purposes. The Economic Secretary himself said it is designed primarily for private enterprise, primarily because the International Bank itself can make loans only to member Governments and cannot invest in equities. It has a circumscribed and detailed membership, which limits the members entirely to those who are members already of the International Bank itself, with no power to take new members except under provisions which will be not in the Agreement but in the Articles. It can invest only on certain conditions.
The first point to be made was made on Second Reading, and it is essential at some stage to the consideration of the Bill. It is this. These provisions are to apply to Colonial Territories, we were told by the Economic Secretary; not only to fully independent territories but those which have not a complete measure of self-government. Everyone knows how difficult it is to define that. One thinks immediately of Rhodesia in the Central African Federation. This organisation is to be set up in Washington—that is part of the Articles of the Agreement—with London guaranteeing repayment of some of the money——
The Chairman: That may be right, but it is not in this Clause, which is simply a definition Clause. I really must ask the hon. Gentleman to try to carry out my Ruling. It is not I who makes the rules. I am here simply to see that

1375
the rules are carried out, and I think the hon. Gentleman is straining them.
Mr. Hale: I hope you do not think that, Sir Charles. As I said a moment ago, with respect to your Ruling, if you are of that opinion this question arises, which I would ask you. Would you tell me on which Clause I can ventilate these difficulties?
The Chairman: I am sorry, but I am unable to do that. It remains to be seen.
Mr. Jay: Is it not fairly evident that it would be relevant for my hon. Friend to make his observations on Clause 2, which deals with payments out of the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of the Agreement?
The Chairman: When we reach Clause 2 we can consider that, and I shall hear what is said then.
Mr. Hale: I shall try to limit myself to Clause 1, seeking to keep within the Ruling you have given, Sir Charles. The Clause says:
"In this Act 'the Agreement' means any agreement which may be signed and accepted on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in pursuance of Articles approved on the eleventh day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-five by the executive directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and providing for the establishment and operation of an international body to be called the International Finance Corporation (copies of which Articles, and of an explanatory memorandum approved as aforesaid, were laid before Parliament by command of Her Majesty on the sixteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty-five); and 'the Corporation' means the International Finance Corporation established by the Agreement."
6.45 p.m.
I want to comply with your Ruling, Sir Charles, and I beg you to interrupt me at once rather than that I should go beyond it. There will be an agreement of some sort. Indeed, that may very well be the fact. It is a very extraordinary confession to come from the Economic Secretary. The Clause means that there must be an Agreement, and that that Agreement, however framed, must be within the ambit and the purview and the limitations contained in the Articles approved on 11th April, 1955, by the Executive Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
1376
I am most anxious not to go outside the terms of the Agreement, Sir Charles, but there are some things that are of real importance which, I think, ought to be said. I suggest, therefore, that it is open to me, if we are to discuss an Agreement which must be made in pursuance of Articles made by the Executive Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to discuss whether the actions of the Executive Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the past have been such that we ought to be prepared to delegate to them the future administration of the International Finance Corporation——
The Chairman: That is where we disagree, I am afraid. This is simply a definition Clause, and we cannot go into the details of what has been done in the past. The Clause simply says what is meant by the Agreement and what is meant by the Corporation.
Mr. Hale: But the Clause says:
"… in pursuance of Articles approved … by the executive directors of the Bank for Reconstruction and Development and providing for the establishment and operation of an international body …"
Surely we can discuss an international body to be called the International Finance Corporation, because it will be an international body subsidiary to the International Bank? If we cannot discuss the International Finance Corporation it seems to me we cannot discuss the Bill at all, because it is called a Bill to enable
"… effect to be given to an international agreement for the establishment and operation of an International Finance Corporation, and for purposes connected therewith."
I make one further point, which is a quite different one, but, I think, a point of importance. The Short Title of the Bill is clearly wrong if the Economic Secretary is right. It is the Short Title of the Bill that has misled us all. It is a Bill
"To enable effect to be given to an international agreement …"
The Economic Secretary now says it does not mean that at all. It means Articles which have been already signed by the Executive Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and they are to carry out an agreement not yet fully discussed, and which

1377
remains open for discussion. We are being asked by the Bill, if the Economic Secretary is right, to give prior authority to the Government to sign an agreement we have not yet signed and to authorise ex post facto the execution of a document subject to future discussion.
I do not doubt, if I am right in that interpretation, that you would say, Sir Charles, that I should be right in saying, if the Committee were asked to give a general and collective assent to the execution of an agreement dealing with these matters, we should discuss them. Clearly then there would be almost no limit to our discussion. If the interpretation put upon it by the Economic Secretary is right, though I say frankly that I doubt that he is, and I think he is wrong, that this Clause will authorise the Government to sign any agreement in the future, roughly based on these Articles, clearly, we should discuss what should be in the Agreement and the sort of people who should administer it, and whether we should part with £500 at this moment.
The Chairman: I do not think so on this Clause.
Mr. Hale: I shall endeavour, on Clause 2, to put the point I had in mind. I shall confine myself now to asking the Economic Secretary to deal at once with this point. The Economic Secretary intervened, and it may be that when he intervened he was in some doubt.
The facts which we want to know are these: do these Articles of Agreement represent Her Majesty's Government's last words? Are the Articles of Agreement the law of the Medes and Persians as far as the Bill is concerned? Are the Articles of Agreement which have been laid before the House the terms which now operate and must continue to operate? The Economic Secretary will observe the difficulty which we all know. We all understand, and we are not trying to be unfair. We appreciate that there is legislative difficulty in the implementation of international agreements, because the requirements of the House of Commons necessarily demand that they should be submitted to the House for full and proper discussion with such information as can be made available about the terms of agreements upon which we are embarking and the objects and intentions and desirability of the matter generally.
1378
But when one has very many nations who are members of the International Bank—and the number substantially increased after Bretton Woods, and with the unhappy exception of Russia is representative of the world—and each one of those members may be considering the matter and there is a possibility that there is some dissent and a desire to vary, it is due to us that the Economic Secretary should tell us here and now whether the short title of the Bill is right.
The Economic Secretary should tell us whether he is asking us here and now to ratify an Agreement which exists. He should say whether this Agreement means no more and no less than the implementation of the Articles by the participating Governments and the formulation of an Agreement which will incorporate the whole of the provisions in the Articles which have been signed by the directors of the Bank. The hon. Gentleman should tell us whether that is so or not.
The hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that there were special reasons for the establishment of the International Finance Corporation and for the Agreement being approved. The reasons which the hon. Gentleman gave on Second Reading were not any failure on the part of the International Bank and the necessity of devising some means——
Sir E. Boyle: On a point of order. My Second Reading speech was fairly wide. I gave a full exposition of the Articles of Agreement to the House last Friday and I do not think that I should be in order on a Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," relating to Clause 1, which is merely a definition Clause, in going back on the ground which was covered last Friday. My answers to quite a number of these questions are reported in columns 694 to 696 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The Chairman: I have done my very best to keep the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in order, and I should have to try to do the same with the hon. Baronet if he tried to repeat his Second Reading speech.
Mr. Hale: What I intended to ask——
The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not make a Second Reading speech. We have been going far beyond

1379
the Clause for a long time and I am not having any more Second Reading speeches.
Mr. Hale: I am not making a Second Reading speech.
I ask the Economic Secretary to say what the Clause means. The hon. Gentleman himself rose to express surprise at the conflict between Clauses 1 and 2. I ask what Clause 1 means, and when we are discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," I respectfully suggest that we are entitled to ask the Economic Secretary, when he has expressed doubt, what the Clause means.
It is quite a simple question. Does Clause I ask Parliament to adopt an Agreement which now exists, or not? Or is it asking Parliament to give a carte blanche to Her Majesty's Government to draw up a future Agreement? The conflict is there. There is no difficulty about it——
The Chairman: There is no difficulty about it except that this is a definition Clause. That is all.
Mr. Hale: I hope, Sir Charles, that you are not ruling that in a discussion on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," I cannot ask what the Clause means when doubts have been expressed by the Economic Secretary about what it means and those doubts are shared by every hon. Member. Surely, with respect, we are entitled to press for a reply to the question whether we are being asked to adopt Articles which appear in a White Paper or to give to Her Majesty's Government power to negotiate further on those Articles and then come to a future Agreement.
Sir E. Boyle: The Articles of Agreement have been prepared by the Bank for acceptance by its member Governments. Until the Articles of Agreement have been accepted by a sufficient number of member Governments it is a proposed Agreement, and the purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Articles of Agreement as they stand. No question of modifying an Agreement is involved. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) raised a point which seemed reasonable, and I said that I would look into the question of what was meant by the word "Agreement" in Clause 1.
Mr. Jay: Then it is quite clear—and we are still on definitions, Sir Charles—that no Agreement at present exists and that all that exists is certain Articles of Agreement.
Sir E. Boyle Sir E. Boyle indicated assent.
Mr. Jay: And when the Bill refers constantly to "the Agreement" it is I presume inaccurate, notably so in Clause 2. At any rate, nothing exists at present except Articles of Agreement.
Mr. Hale: In view of the answer now given by the Economic Secretary, I am quite prepared to accept that the Agreement which we are now discussing is the Articles of Agreement contained in the White Paper which has been submitted to the House of Commons and which contain full details of the way in which the Agreement will operate. May I, therefore, respectfully suggest to you, Sir Charles, that I am entitled to make some brief and appropriate reference to the terms of the Articles and to say to which I object before I assent to the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill? If, of course, it is indicated from the Chair that in the opinion of the Chair this falls to be discussed on some other Clause, I will at once sit down.
The Chairman: I have made it perfectly clear. It cannot be discussed now on a definition Clause.
Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. I respectfully submit that we are entitled to ask for a Ruling from the Chair on this important point. Is it the Ruling of the Chair that this Agreement cannot be discussed at all?
The Chairman: I did not make that Ruling at all. I said that the Clause is a very narrow definition Clause and a Second Reading speech cannot be made upon it. I have said that nearly a dozen times already and I am getting tired of saying it.
Mr. Hale: I am getting tired of asking. If the whole Agreement on which the Bill is based is irrelevant to Clause 1, is it not in order for me to ask at what time it will become relevant? I said quite frankly very much earlier that I had procedural doubts about Clause 1, but the point is material and one would desire to argue it at the appropriate stage. My question now is whether it can be discussed at all.
The Chairman: I cannot give a Ruling on that, as the hon. Member knows. The Ruling which I am giving is that it cannot be discussed now, and if the hon. Member does not understand that by now I cannot make it any clearer.
Mr. William Warbey: You have given a Ruling, Sir Charles, that this is a definition Clause, and I shall try to keep within your Ruling. We are now told that the Agreement which is referred to in the Bill is not what we had been told it was, but we have not yet been told very much about any Agreement which Her Majesty's Government is to make later on. What form will that take? Will it be laid before the House of Commons and shall we have an opportunity of discussing it? Surely, that is the point about which the Economic Secretary should tell the Committee something.
We should also have a little more definition of the Articles of Agreement themselves. I should like to call the attention of the Economic Secretary to Schedule A of the Articles of Agreement, as I have a very important point of definition to put to the Committee. I notice in Schedule A that amongst the countries from which subscriptions to the capital stock of the International Finance Corporation are to be invited is China. My question is, which China?
The Chairman: Whichever China it is the question is out of order on Clause 1.
Mr. Warbey: With very great respect, Sir Charles, I am now really asking for a definition, and you ruled that this is a definition Clause. I am asking for a definition of "China."
The Chairman: I said that it was a definition Clause, but I did not mean by that the definition of all sorts of things that are not covered here.
Mr. Warbey: I am trying to keep within your Ruling, Sir Charles, but I respectfully submit that the question of definition arises in connection with anything which is within the Agreement——
It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and, at the end of the Question, to add "upon this day six months."
We had an interesting debate on 1st April, 1952, on matters which were very largely identical with the questions that will undoubtedly be debated this evening. On that occasion, the British Electricity Authority, now the Central Electricity Authority, promoted a Private Bill for the building of hydro-electric works on a large scale in the general area of Snowdonia, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was responsible for moving the Second Reading.
I opposed the Bill then, as I oppose it this evening for a similar reason. It is significant that, on 1st April, 1952, we had a Division at the end of the Second Reading debate, and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I—for there were several Ministers of the then Conservative Government who voted in the same Lobby as I did—were defeated by 200 votes to 40, which, one might think, was a very large margin. The interesting thing was that, within a few months, the Electricity Authority completely capitulated, and out of the £4½ million worth of schemes that were proposed in that Bill it withdrew £4 million worth, and left only a very minor part—£500,000 worth—for a scheme for the extension of the catchment area of the existing pre-war Dolgarrog and Maentwrog hydro-electric works. The Authority withdrew the whole of the proposals for the Ffestiniog scheme, costing, as it was then, about £4 million.
The reason the Authority gave was that it could not afford the capital investment. I did not quarrel with the Authority publicly, though it seemed a very disingenuous and feeble excuse. The fact of the matter was that, at the time the Authority was investing at the rate of £170 million a year, and what it was saying was that it could not afford to find £1 million out of that to go on with the Ffestiniog scheme.

1383
The plain fact of the matter was that public opinion was very largely against the Authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, the plain fact of the matter was that there was a great volume of opposition manifested in this House, although we were defeated upon it, and the Authority withdrew the scheme. Now, a matter of three years later, it has brought in a very similar Bill, but this time for a much larger amount.
The Bill before the House this evening proposes to build hydro-electric works at Ffestiniog and at Rheidol, but the Ffestiniog works proposed in this Bill are entirely different in character from those proposed in the last Bill, which were abandoned a few months after my speech On the subject. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman is too modest."] I am very interested to know why the Authority turned turtle on the disingenuous argument of capital investment. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman's speech."] No doubt the Authority read it afterwards, but what is much more important is that it now proposes an entirely different scheme at Ffestiniog—a scheme which is fundamentally different from that which it turned down three years ago, and which it was then very anxious to promote because the Authority said it was highly economic and perfect in every way.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power—in due course, I suppose he will intervene in the debate—to justify the sanction which my right hon. Friend has given to the introduction of this Bill, for the Minister has to give such a sanction. Why did the Electricity Authority turn turtle and fundamentally alter that scheme? I say that it would be wrong for any hon. Member of this House, on either side, to regard these two schemes, Ffestiniog and Rheidol, in isolation. They are, in fact, part of a whole series of schemes costing a very large sum of money for hydro-electric works in North Wales. The first scheme is evidently to be the Ffestiniog scheme which is to be followed by Rheidol, followed by Conway, followed by Nant Frangcon, followed by Mawddach and by half a dozen schemes on and around Snowdon.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) made this point very well in
1384
the debate on 1st April, 1952, and should like to quote him. He said:
"I do hope the House will bear in mind that the Bill is the first of a series of measures by which the British Electricity Authority hope to implement a vast and complex scheme to harness the entire watershed of Snowdonia for hydro-electrical purposes."
He went on in these words, which were very significant from a local hon. Member:
"In the Bill, the B.E.A. are asking for everything and conceding nothing. They are literally asking for the earth, and, indeed, as one reads the terms of the Bill, it seems at times that the Authority are begging for opposition. This is all the more surprising in view of the intense public interest"—
and this is for the benefit of those hon. Gentlemen who shouted at me just now—
"the intense public interest and concern over the B.E.A.'s proposals since they were first announced some years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1952; Vol. 498, cc. 1495–6.]
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Read the final sentence.
Mr. Nabarro: I have already read two paragraphs. If the hon. Gentleman wants to read the whole debate, he can go away and read it himself.
There was intense public concern, and the result of it was, following the speeches made in this House, which I was privileged to lead on that occasion, the greater part of the proposals in the Bill were withdrawn.
Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There are two points arising from what he has just said. The first is that the earlier scheme was really completely different in scope and character from the present scheme. Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman now give us his evidence for what he has just said—that the present scheme is the precursor of schemes for Conway, Mawddach, Nant Frangcon and all the rest?
Mr. Nabarro: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue. I will deal with all these points in the rest of my speech. I do not wish to be unduly partisan about this, because I think the hon. Gentleman will find that, if a Division follows this debate this evening, there will be Members of both parties voting in opposite Lobbies. This is not a party political discussion, and I will try to deal with it on that basis.

1385
There is great concern today about the amenity considerations of this Bill, which may be dealt with later in the Committee. In the notes which they have put out to guide hon. Members of the House, the Electricity Authority has included all the points which it thought was of value to the scheme, and has omitted nearly as much more which it thought might be disadvantageous. The Authority uses these words in connection with amenities:
"Although the town of Blaenau Ffestiniog itself is excluded from the Snowdonia National Park, the scheme itself is for the most part within the Park. The Rheidol scheme is situated in fine country in the middle of Wales below Plynlimmon and in the Rheidol Valley."
In fact, practically all the works and the approaches to the works will be within or directly adjacent to the National Park area.
I am concerned very largely this evening with the economics of a scheme of this kind, and though most of us recognise that it is important that our fuel and power economy generally should be as diversified as possible in present circumstances, with the emphasis on the saving of coal, there is a limit to the capital investment that should be called upon to save one ton of coal.
People who plead, as the Electricity Authority pleads in its notes to hon. Members, that there is a large coal saving inherent in the scheme should relate the coal saving to the capital investment cost involved, because there is a direct relationship between these two considerations. I do not believe that any hon. Member on either side of the House will quarrel with me when I say that one does not want to spend £1 million in capital investment in order to save one ton of coal a year. There must be a limit to the amount of money that one invests for coal economy purposes.
The Ffestiniog scheme, which is by far the more expensive of the two, is to cost £14·79 million, and the Rheidol scheme, the smaller of the two, £5·79 million, a total of £20·58 million.
The first comment that I would make in connection with the two schemes and their cost is that one must bear in mind the occupational efficiency of the schemes. Putting it in different terms, one must consider the continuity of operation of the power schemes, which is generally described by the Authority as the "load factor."
1386
The load factor of the two schemes is appallingly low, which means that a very large part of the capital moneys invested in the schemes will lie idle throughout the life of the capital works. For instance, in the case of Ffestiniog, which is a pump storage scheme and not an orthodox hydro-electric scheme, the load factor or occupational efficiency is only 11 per cent. That means that the £14,790,000 capital invested in the scheme will be used as to 11 per cent. and lying idle as to 89 per cent.
I want to compare that—it is an extreme case—with the efficiencies which we have reached in this country with orthodox power stations, which now have the highest efficiencies in the world, even taking into account the United States of America. It is significant that, for instance, the very large power station at Portobello. "B" Edinburgh, has been working at a load factor or occupational efficiency of 89 per cent., which means that the capital invested in it is continuously used as to 89 per cent. and only standing idle as to 11 per cent. At Ffestiniog the exact reverse is the case.
I question whether we ought, notwithstanding the coal shortage, to invest moneys which are to be put into enforced idleness for what amounts to seven-eights of the time that the asset may be used.
I am glad to see the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) in her place. She spoke in the previous de-date and took me up on the same point. I referred on that occasion to the new Connah's Quay power station being built on the estuary of the River Dee. I asked why it should not be used to a greater occupational efficiency with hardly any extra fuel consumption, and thus avoid the disruption caused by the extravagant hydro-electric schemes a few miles away.
I quoted in support of what I said the report by Sir Patrick Abercrombie to the Caernarvonshire County Council, in which he made the same point. The Minister of Fuel and Power replied that one could not work power stations to such a high load factor because it would mean power being generated in the middle of the night. That was three years ago, before the Portobello Station or the Connah's Quay station were working.
Mr. E. G. Willis: Portobello "A" station was working.
Mr. Nabarro: Portobello "A" station was working at that time, but not Portobello "B," and I am talking about Portobello "B" station. Since that date I have been proved exactly right. By increasing the occupational efficiency of existing power stations, the whole of the extravagant works in North Wales could be done without.
It is proposed to work the Rheidol scheme at a load factor of only 19 per cent., which means that the capital of £5·79 million will be 19 per cent. occupied and 81 per cent. lying idle. That is not quite as bad as Ffestiniog, but it is nearly as bad.
There is one parallel case in the United Kingdom for this kind of thing. It is in Scotland. It is a hydro-electric works which was built for peak load operation, and it is the biggest "white elephant" of any hydro-electric works in the world. It is the Loch Sloy power station, which works on a load factor of 10 per cent. The misguided people who built it said that it was necessary to have it to meet the Glasgow peak load. Any electrical engineer could have told the people responsible for promoting the scheme that the proper thing would have been to have put an auxiliary generator in an existing power house and worked it for a couple of hours a day during the peak load period. That would have saved a very large part of the capital cost involved. The use of the generator would have been restricted to the hours when additional power was required to meet the peak load.
The cases against the two North Wales schemes are very largely the same. I invite hon. Gentlemen to read Sir Patrick Abercrombie on this subject. I do not want them to read the whole of his lengthy report to the Caernarvonshire County Council, because it is not all entirely relevant and much of it deals with amenity considerations, but on 1st April, 1952, I quoted the part of Sir Patrick's report about the use of existing power stations and raising their load factor to eliminate the need for these extravagant water stations. That holds good today and is entirely apposite to the case I am putting tonight in opposition to the Bill.
1388
Some hon. Members think that the sole justification for these extravagant water works is that a small amount of coal will be saved. The two schemes, involving constructional works costing £20,580,000, will, when they are brought to fruition, save 71,000 tons of coal a year. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will listen carefully to this. I hope he will get one of his advisers to do a little sum or put a slide rule over the figures to find out what it is costing in capital investment to save one ton of coal a year. The answer is that £290 of capital investment is required in these two schemes to save one ton of coal, £5 worth of coal, a year. That is a ratio of about sixty to one.
It means that, without any interest charges on the capital invested, it will take 60 years to recover, in terms of value of coal economy, the amount of the investment. If interest charges are added, it will take more than a hundred years to recover the investment. No commercial concern which had to show a profit year by year in the open competitive market could conceivably go forward with an undertaking of that kind.
I want to make a direct comparison, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to this with equal care. My hon. Friend is as anxious as I am to promote fuel efficiency and saving. In these two schemes it takes £290 of capital investment to save one ton of coal per annum. In the case of a textile factory which I recently checked up very carefully, £100,000 of capital was invested to save 6,000 tons of coal a year. If we divide the coal saving into the investment figure it will be found that it takes only £17 of capital investment to save one ton of coal a year—£17 for one ton of coal saved per annum in a textile factory; £290 of investment to save a ton of coal per anum in this scheme, which is a ratio of seventeen to one against the hydro-electric scheme.
I suggest that it is grossly extravagant to approve an investment of £20½ million of public money for a scheme which produces a nugatory saving—in relation to the investment—of 71,000 tons of coal a year when between fifteen to twenty-five times the coal saving could be derived from that investment in general industry and in other connections. That is the case against the claims made by the British Electrical Authority that these

1389
schemes are of importance from a coal saving point of view.
Before I sit down I shall be asked what is the alternative. These are not schemes for rural electrification. Neither Rheidol nor Ffestiniog are such schemes. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) who could not be here this evening through illness—and we shall miss his contribution to the debate—said on the last occasion, "Oh, yes, we must have these hydro-electric schemes in Snowdonia, because they will bring electricity to the remote farms of Cardiganshire."
That is rot. It was never intended that they should do so. They were to be installed as stations to feed electricity into the grid. Because I disputed that on the last occasion, the British Electricity Authority has been a little more forthcoming this time. It has written into its brief and notes for Members the direct statement that these stations are for peak load purposes, and are not in any way intended to assist rural electrification.
Mr. F. Blackburn: The hon. Member seems to be in possession of facts which are not possessed by other hon. Members. Several times he has referred to notes supplied to hon. Members by the Electricity Authority. May I ask which hon. Members have had these notes?
Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry, but I cannot act as a sort of Parliamentary guardian to the hon. Gentleman. I am a free enterprising Member of Parliament—as you, Mr. Speaker, will know—and if I wish to find out what is the opposition to what I shall say in this House, I go to the source. In connection with their Parliamentary machinations, the Central Electricity Authority employ a firm of Parliamentary agents called Dyson Bell and Company. They distributed throughout this House—they gave a copy to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) who is supporting this Bill—notes entitled, "North Wales Hydro-Electricity Board Bill, notes for Second Reading, House of Commons, Thursday, 7th July." If the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) has not received a copy, that is not my fault, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Conway has not received one, he can borrow mine.
Mr. Peter Thomas: I wish to inform my hon. Friend that he is not correct when he says that the Central Electricity Authority gave me some notes for this debate. I have today come into the possession of these notes, but they were not given to me by the Authority.
Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry. But that is a mere technicality. It does not matter from whence he got them so long as my hon. Friend has got them.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is giving the sources of his information, will he give the reference for the intervention which he attributed to the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). I think that perhaps the hon. Member is confusing the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan with the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies).
Mr. Nabarro: I may be; I am sorry if that is so. I may be mistaken about it. But it is the fact that on the occasion of the last debate the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), if he did not say so across the Chamber to me, indicated strongly to me outside the Chamber that this was a rural electrification measure. It is not a rural electrification measure this time. It is a peak load contribution.
For only one-third of the capital cost involved in these schemes, the Central Electricity Authority could install oil driven auxiliary generators in existing power stations to meet peak load needs. Surely my hon. Friend cannot object to that proposal. Only last Monday his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power in reply to Parliamentary Questions, was telling me that 5 million tons of oil per annum were to be used in power stations, within three years from now, to save 8 million tons of coal a year and, pro rata, only a tiny amount of oil would have to be substituted to save the whole of these hydro-electric schemes before the House tonight.
If it be claimed that there is no parallel case available to test the efficacy of what I am recommending this evening about auto-diesels, I invite hon. Gentlemen to study the fact that at the lower end of the Rheidol Valley in Wales, where it flows out to the sea at Aberystwyth, a long time before the war when a power

1391
station was built there, oil generators were installed in order to save long transmission lines and the attendant heavy capital cost, and in order to save hauling coal over long distances. Exactly the same principles apply at Wick, in the north of Scotland.
For those reasons I believe that the Measure before the House is financially improvident, economically unjustifiable and aesthetically ruinous. I shall invite right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to join with me in opposing the Bill and supporting a policy of providing power where it is really needed, namely, in the remote areas of rural Wales, by means of small auto-diesel power stations close to the points of consumption; and in the case of peak load requirements—notably in the industrial areas—by the installation of auxiliary oil-driven generators in existing power stations where there is available capacity for them. Both alternatives could be furnished at only one-third of the capital cost involved in these schemes and at running costs approximately comparable with the cost of the electricity generated by these hydro-electric schemes.
Mr. G. Roberts: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the point I raised earlier? I asked him if he would adduce the evidence of the point which he made, namely, that this scheme is the precursor of similar and larger schemes at Nat Ffrancon, Conway, Aberglaslyn and other such parts of Snowdonia? Can the hon. Gentleman give the evidence?
Mr. Nabarro: It is I think well known —but the hon. Gentleman should apply to the Electricity Authority for corroboration—that it has a long-term plan in North Wales for all these schemes successively. That has, in fact, led so far to the extension at Maentwrog and Dolgarrog and is now leading to these proposals applying to the Ffestiniog scheme and the Rheidol scheme. The hon. Gentleman should get confirmation from the Electricity Authority, but I would remind him that he cannot complain about what I am saying, because he himself said it on the occasion of the Second Reading of the last Bill on 1st April, 1952.
Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member cannot ride off in that way. He definitely said that this scheme, which is completely
1392
different in scope and character from the one we attacked in the South years ago, was a precursor of schemes of the kind we opposed three years ago. I challenge him to give the evidence.
Mr. Nabarro: In fact——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This discussion is becoming irregular.
7.29 p.m.
Mr. Peter Kirk: I beg to second the Amendment.
I did not have the advantage enjoyed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) of taking part in the previous debate on a similar scheme three years ago. I should also make it clear that I do not share in the fight to the death which is being carried on by my hon. Friend with the British Electricity Authority. I wish to oppose this Bill chiefly—in fact almost entirely so far as the Rheidol scheme is concerned —on the grounds of amenity considerations.
My hon. Friend has said that the Rheidol scheme is the smaller of the two, but it will do more damage to more beautiful country than will the other. The British Electricity Authority has made concessions on the question of Ffestiniog which have not entirely done away with the apprehensions of some of us interested in the preservation of the countryside, but they have gone a long way to meet objections which have been raised. It is most unfortunate that they have not seen fit to do the same thing with regard to Rheidol.
I think it is germane to the issue that both schemes are planned to take place either within or very adjacent to a National Park. Actually, the Rheidol scheme is almost outside the designated National Park, but it is in one of the areas scheduled by the Hobhouse Committee as being of special beauty. I do not think that we can regard National Parks as being sacrosanct, but if public authorities wish to carry out works of this kind in these beautiful areas they must justify their need on two grounds.
First, they must prove that there are overriding economic reasons why the work must be carried out there and not anywhere else. Secondly, they must make every effort to preserve the amenities of the area should they carry out the work.

1393
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster has, I think, proved demonstrably that the first of these two conditions has not been met, and I do not think that the second has either.
Of course, Clause 26 of the Bill before us tonight provides for various safeguards which are supposed to protect the countryside. It seems to me to be a very vaguely drawn Clause, and I doubt very much whether it will accomplish what it sets out to do. Anyway, if the Bill passes in its present form, no amount of calling in of country planning consultants and landscape gardeners is going to safeguard the basic thing, which is the view of Plynlimmon and of the Upper Rheidol Valley, which is destined to be completely obliterated by this Bill. Nor will it save the Drosgol Hill.
Mr. Arthur Moyle: I am following the hon. Gentleman with great interest, because the Rheidol Valley happens to be part of my own area. Did he say that this Rheidol scheme would in any way obliterate the view of Plynlimmon?
Mr. Kirk: I think that it would desecrate it, because it is intended that the Upper Rheidol Valley shall be the right or the eastern arm of the reservoir at the top. As a result, when the level has fallen very considerably in time of drought, there will be a very large area of mud and stones exposed to view. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my own enthusiasm for that part of Wales.
Mr. Moyle: I must say that the hon. Gentleman spoils a very good case by exaggeration.
Mr. Kirk: I do not think that I am exaggerating to that extent. The Electricity Authority admits that a very large area will be exposed in times of drought, and though droughts are not very common in this country, they do occur from time to time.
Secondly, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it will make access to Drosgol almost impossible. On three sides it will be surrounded by water, and on the northern side it will be bog. It is now almost virtually impossible of access, particularly from the south.
This very beautiful valley is also used for the herding of sheep by farms on the other side of what is now designated as
1394
the reservoir. It has been suggested to the Electricity Authority that it should build a bridge across one of the narrow arms of the reservoir, but that the authority has refused to do. Maybe the planners could not cope with that situation, but no steps have been taken to deal with the matter, especially on the northern side where it is all bog.
Another question is that of the Rheidol Gorge to the south. The flow of water through there will be lessened as a result of this scheme. The authorities can only guarantee to maintain a quarter of the present amount of water for certain periods of the day during certain periods of the summer. It will almost be as if a visitor to that part of the world will have to put in 6d., press the button and watch the water flow. I do not think that that is the way to treat this beautiful part of the world.
There are other points of objection, too, which the authorities have failed to meet. Of the lowest dam of all, they have refused to earth the dam, although they are prepared to camouflage the 90-foot dam in the Ffestiniog scheme. Also, they are not prepared to site their dam slightly further upstream some 500 yards or so where it would not be visible from the bridge further down, thus spoiling another beautiful view.
The generating station is right in the valley. While I agree that it may be necessary to have a generating station there, I think that some attempt could be made to disguise the desecration which will take place. But, of course, the main objection is bound to be the question of the eastern half of the reservoir about which the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) said that I was exaggerating the effects. I do not think that I am. I believe that there is a very grave danger that the view will be destroyed.
I am not so opposed to the Ffestiniog scheme as it now stands as to vote against it. I regard is as an excellent scheme for bringing light industry into the neighbourhood, which we all know is suffering from a certain amount of unemployment. If it were possible to separate the two schemes within this Bill, I would vote only against the Rheidol scheme and not against the Ffestiniog scheme, but as that is not possible, and because of the other

1395
issues raised by my hon. Friend and myself, I must support this Amendment.
7.37 p.m.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I must admit that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) does not suffer from any sense of modesty in putting forward the proposals in his Amendment this evening. Even though I have a very great deal of sympathy with his proposal on amenity grounds, I must say that some parts of his speech almost convert me to a different opinion.
At the outset, I think I must correct some of his statements so as to put the matter in proper order. I agree with him, of course, that these schemes do not bring electricity supplies to the immediate rural areas. Nor are they designed to do so. But I think it fair, as a point of correction, to remind the House of something which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) said when this matter was debated on 1st April, 1952.
On that occasion, my hon. Friend interrupted the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) when he was referring to the great value which schemes of this nature would be to the local people. My hon. Friend then asked whether the House could be told which of the Clauses in the Bill provided for electricity in the rural areas. It is accepted, apparently, on all sides that these schemes are not intended to bring electricity supplies to the rural areas, and therefore that kind of argument cannot be used.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), who unfortunately is not able to be here this evening, takes a very strong view about this matter, because he was, of course, concerned with the approval of certain other earlier schemes when he held office as Minister of Fuel and Power. He takes the view that these schemes, as put forward, are undesirable because it was his understanding that the similar schemes which he then approved were going to be the end of the hydro-electric schemes proposed for North Wales. He certainly indicated that he would be inclined to oppose any increase in the size of the schemes or in their number. I know he takes the view that both the schemes which are included in this proposal are
1396
generally undesirable upon those grounds, and he would have regarded them as unsatisfactory.
The main question which I want to emphasise this evening is the objection to the schemes—principally to the Rheidol scheme—upon grounds of amenity. The part of North Wales in which this area is situated has one vital asset, namely, its natural beauty. Even though we are very anxious to ensure that proper modern facilities shall be available here, as elsewhere, we are absolutely certain that unless we can get adequate protection of those natural amenities the people of North Wales, as well as everyone else, will suffer. I should have to be thoroughly convinced that the proposals which we are now considering would not injure that basic vital capital possessed by North Wales before I could feel able to support the carrying forward of this scheme to a Committee of this House this evening.
Like that of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk), my main objection is to the Rheidol scheme. That is the smaller of the two, but the one which appears to do the greater damage to the natural beauty of the area. In the case of the other and larger scheme, for Ffestiniog, the Electricity Authority has gone to a very great deal of trouble to meet many of the objections which have been raised on amenity grounds, and has incurred considerable costs in the process. I welcome the fact that this amount of trouble has been taken.
If it had been possible to vote against one scheme and not the other, I—like the hon. Member for Gravesend—should have been happy to do so. Indeed, if I could secure a sufficiently solid undertaking that consideration would be given to amenity interests in the case of the Rheidol scheme I should feel that the scheme might be allowed to go to Committee. It is a striking fact that, whereas in the Ffestiniog scheme much concern has been shown about the amenity interest, the same attention does not seem to have been given to that question in the other scheme. Both in the actual siting of the reservoirs and the siting and construction of the dams—which are matters of very great concern—it looks as though a great deal of further consideration will have to be given before approval can be expressed for these proposals.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I confess that what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) has been saying has surprised me a little, because his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker)—whom, he says, would have opposed these schemes—himself approved the first Ffestiniog scheme, and the Rheidol scheme was also within the scope of that approval. I was wondering if the hon. Member could, in consequence, state rather more clearly what assurance he requires with regard to the amenity aspect of the Rheidol scheme.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend cannot be here, but I understand from him that the scheme to which he gave approval was infinitely smaller than that which is being put forward today in respect of Ffestiniog, The first Ffestiniog scheme was a much more modest proposal which, I understand, proved to be incapable of being carried out in practice, for technical reasons of one kind or another. This proposal is about 100 times greater in power and size than the scheme which he approved.
Mr. Nabarro: In order to help the hon. Member's argument, I should like to point out that the scheme approved by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) was in the sum of £4 million, and was a straightforward hydro-electric scheme. The scheme for which approval is being sought under the Bill is in the sum of £14·79 million and is a pump storage scheme, roughly three and a half times as big as the original proposal.
Mr. Blenkinsop: In any case, it seems that the proposals which are now before us are upon a vastly greater scale than those which my right hon. Friend approved. He certainly expressed to me his very great anxiety about them, and there is no doubt about his views.
I now want to refer to what I regard as the greater danger to amenity. After consideration had been given to the proposals in another place, I understand that satisfactory undertakings have been given, with regard to the Ffestiniog proposals, in connection with the form of construction of the dams. They will be constructed so as to avoid any
1398
damage to the amenities of the area. That does not appear to be the case with regard to the Rheidol scheme. I am aware that agreement has been reached about the tunnelling, and that a considerable part of the piping will be underground, but, on the other hand, it had been hoped at the start that any proposals for Rheidol would not include both arms of the upper valley. The disfiguration of the gorge in the lower part of the valley—to which the hon. Member for Gravesend has referred—is another matter upon which grave anxieties have been expressed.
I take the view—and I have no doubt many of my hon. Friends agree—that it would have been best for the House to have approved the Ffestiniog scheme but not the Rheidol scheme, because in that case I am by no means convinced that adequate consideration has been given to the views expressed by various bodies concerned on amenity grounds. The difficulty is that although many of us might have desired to arrive at a compromise proposal, which would have met the conditions and would have allowed one scheme to go forward while the other was held back, that does not seem to be practicable at the present time.
I should like to have some assurance from the Minister that there will be a further complete examination of the Rheidol scheme, in order to see whether the main objections which have been put forward by the hon. Member for Gravesend and the various bodies concerned can be reconsidered and met. If a proposal could be made in that form it might well meet my own feelings and those of other hon. Members, but unless we can have some such undertaking some of us will very regretfully feel compelled to support the Amendment, in the hope that the scheme for Ffestiniog may be brought back at another time, as a separate proposal, when, no doubt, the House will approve it. I hope that it will at least be possible for the Minister to give an undertaking upon those lines before we part with the Bill.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Peter Thomas: I support the passage of the Bill, as I did of the Bill that came before the House in 1952. Most hon. Members then had very strong criticisms to make of the Bill which was presented by the British Electricity Autho-

1399
rity. Our opposition to that Bill was almost entirely on the amenity and planning side, and because of the effect which the Bill would have on agriculture by the abstraction of water and in other ways.
I thought I should make that point clear. It might have been thought at that time that I was in harness with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in his opposition to that Bill. Today I support the passage of the Bill, not that I wholeheartily support everything in it, but because a good case has been made out by the Central Electricity Authority for the two schemes. The Ffestiniog scheme in particular is good. I can think of many advantages that it will bring, not only to North Wales but to Britain. I confess I had grave doubts of the Rheidol scheme, as other Members had, because of the effect on the amenities of the area. I am happy to know, as the Bill went from another place to a Committee and eventually reached its Second Reading here, that a great deal of work has been done to remove the objections put forward by bodies who are interested in the preservation of amenities.
One can now feel that there will be very little ill effect on these areas from the two hydro-electric schemes under the Bill as amended. I do not wish to go into the technical side, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster said is true. I am in possession of a brief which gives me information on the technical side of the schemes. Other people who may have read the brief may appreciate the great advantages which may flow from these schemes. Amenity, planning and agriculture concerned us very greatly when the 1952 Bill came up. The present Bill has safeguards, and I have every confidence that when these schemes go to Committee those matters will be looked into very carefully, and that the fears entertained by interested bodies will be dispelled.
I hope that these schemes will come into effect. I have every confidence that they will do so for the general benefit.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. T. W. Jones: Perhaps I should declare at the outset of my speech that I am an ex-employee of the Central Electricity Authority. That fact
1400
has nothing to do with what I am going to say. I am interested only in Ffestiniog, which has been mentioned many times in the debate and which is the largest town in my constituency. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said he was interested only in the economics. I differ from him. I am interested only in the human aspect of the matter, as I hope to show as I proceed.
Blaenau Ffestiniog is wholeheartedly behind the scheme. I fully appreciate the desire of hon. Members to preserve and protect the natural beauty and scenery of Merionethshire and Cardiganshire, and I would be second to none in my determination to do that; but safeguards have already secured it. The Snowdonia Joint Advisory Committee sought the assistance of Sir Patrick Abercrombie when the Bill was framed. The framers have taken good care to satisfy that notable architect's views on the architecture of the scheme, and there should be no qualms from that angle.
When the Bill was discussed in another place, satisfaction was expressed that in the Ffestiniog scheme the amenities were for all time secured. Certain outside bodies are concerned about the preservation of the amenities of Blaenau Ffestiniog; I am sure they will concede that the inhabitants must be more concerned than they are about those amenities. Those inhabitants are all in favour of the scheme. I do not see that any further objection can arise from that quarter. If there were a danger to the natural amenities, the inhabitants would be the first to protest, but they do not protest, because they are perfectly satisfied that the amenities have been secured.
I support the Bill for another particular reason. I hope the House will note what I am saying. I have frequently related in this House the rather pathetic situation which prevails in Blaenau Ffestiniog, which has one industry, the slate industry. This is a declining industry. Every year more people leave the area to seek employment in other parts of Wales and in England. Depopulation is persistent. Almost within living memory the population of the town of Ffestiniog has been reduced from 14,000 to less than 7,000 today.
We are losing more than people. We are losing from that part of the world

1401
a native culture not to be found elsewhere. If we went into Blaenau Ffestiniog tonight we would hear no English, not a word. The people habitually speak Welsh on the streets, at the works, in places of worship, in the shops —everywhere. There is a form of culture in that part of the world which is not to be found anywhere else. We are losing that, by this persistent depopulation. As Welsh people, we are determined to preserve our culture. That can be done only by keeping the people there, and that can be done only by providing them with work. People in Wales cannot live on the wind any more than people can in Kidderminster. They will remain in Wales as long as there is work there for them to do.
If this Bill goes through—and I passionately appeal to the House to let it go through without a Division—it will provide employment in Blaenau Ffestiniog for between 700 and 800 people for eight years. We have heard of economics from the hon. Member for Kidderminster. but these are the real economics for a town where the remaining industry is declining year by year.
In Blaenau Ffestiniog there is another pathetic element which commands sympathy. This is a quarry area, and like every other quarry and coalmining area scores of workers suffer from that dreadful disease, silicosis. If a man is declared to be suffering from even a percentage of that disease, he is warned not to re-enter the quarry but to seek light work. That simply adds insult to injury, because there is no light work. The man is told, "You are suffering from a high percentage of silicosis and in no circumstances should you go back into the quarry. By all means seek light work." Where can he go? Nowhere. He can only sit in the corner of his kitchen worrying over his economic affairs.
There is no such thing as light work to be found either in that area or in the whole of the county. I know that this scheme will demand heavy work, but incidental to that there must, of necessity, be a large number of light jobs. Here is a hope at last for those men—so often breathless from this terrible disease—to find suitable employment for the next eight years. On that humanitarian ground I ask the House to pass the Bill. As I say, I am not interested in economics
1402
but in this human problem. The local people are wholeheartedly behind this scheme, and will indeed be dismayed if on the wireless tonight they hear that the Bill has been rejected.
The scheme will be carried into effect in that part of Blaenau Ffestiniog known as Tanygrisiau, where the inhabitants held a meeting on 19th January, 1955. Although the resolution which was passed was necessarily worded in Welsh, I shall give the following English version:
"That the meeting of the inhabitants of Tanygrisiau welcomes most ardently the Electricity Power Scheme."
To test the feeling of the whole town the local council held a meeting which almost filled the local cinema—the sort of meeting which few hon. Members had the pleasure of seeing at the Election. There was no apathy there. The following resolution was passed:
"That this Public Meeting of the inhabitants of the Ffestiniog Urban District held on the 22nd January, 1955, at the Forum Cinema, Blaenau Ffestiniog, welcomes the North Wales Hydro-Electric Power Bill presented to Parliament and looks forward to the Bill becoming law in the near future. The meeting also warmly supports the efforts of the Ffestiniog Urban District Council to secure this Scheme, believing it will bring hope of a brighter future for the area."
I may add that in what I say tonight I am supported by the Quarrymen's Union. The local council has received only one letter of protest, and when I say where it has come from I shall hardly be believed.
Mr. Blackburn: Kidderminster.
Mr. Jones: No—from Birmingham. The Birmingham people are so enamoured with the natural beauties of their surroundings, where
"… every prospect pleases And only man is vile"
that they are very concerned that Ffestiniog should not lose its natural beauty. Indeed, the very fact that the protest comes from across the border should persuade every hon. Member to support the Bill. North Wales, practically to a man, is behind the scheme.
There is another important aspect. The proposed power station will not have its equal or its like in the whole of Europe, nor will there be anything approaching it in the British Isles. It will be an engineer-

1403
ing feat, and I can well imagine that visitors wanting to enjoy the natural beauty of Merioneth—and there is no county in the whole of Wales or the British Isles to compare with it for natural beauty—will want not only to enjoy that beauty but to see an engineering feat unique in Europe.
That will develop the tourist industry of North Wales which, as every leader in public life will state, is the chief hope of North Wales—and the people of Cardiganshire would agree. They are very, very eager to persuade people to do what they are doing tonight in Llangollen —coming from everywhere. We want to persuade them to do that, and there is here a hope of developing the tourist industry by having this scheme established in Blaenau Ffestiniog. I am sure, also, that due care will be given to see that the amenities of Cardiganshire are not spoilt.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend really suggesting that an eisteddfod should be held by the side of a power station? I ask that, while reminding him that I am not opposing the Blaenau scheme.
Mr. Jones: I am not suggesting that an eisteddfod should be held there, but I say that people will come to see this great work when it is established at the end of 10 years. I make an appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House, first, not to divide on this Motion and, secondly, if there is a Division, to allow the hon. Member for Kidderminster to go into the Lobby alone.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: I am justified in intervening in this debate because part of this Bill refers to my county of Montgomery, and also because I wish to support the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones). I can agree with him in everything he said, except his remark that Merioneth is the most beautiful county. That is the only matter on which we differ.
The hon. Member described conditions in Ffestiniog. The tourist industry and attractions for tourists are a matter of interest to us, but the lives of the people of Wales who have to live there when tourists do not come to the country is a matter of greater importance to us. We are more concerned with their amenities
1404
and mode of life than with the attractions there may be for those who visit us occasionally in the summer months.
I can bear out the description the hon. Member gave of conditions under which men have to work in Ffestiniog and the terrible tragedies that occur because of those conditions. I used to appear on behalf of those workers in the county courts trying to get workmen's compensation for them. I also had the important job of conducting an inquiry about Wales. The worst conditions were found in that quarrying district where men go down into the bowels of the earth. They work there in so much dust and so little oxygen that even a candle will not keep alight when held aloft and two men cannot see one another within a couple of yards. Cannot we offer some work above ground to these men so that they will not have to shorten their lives, as they have to, by continuing to seek this the only work open to them near their homes which they have learned to treasure?
Another matter which also concerns us in Montgomeryshire is that this House has placed upon the British Electricity Authority the duty of providing electric power and electric light throughout the whole of England and Wales. That duty was put upon the Authority. It is rightly referred to in the Act as providing
"an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system."
I am not in a position to go into the details of that, but the Authority had the duty put upon it by Parliament itself to go into the question of the economics of a scheme before it presented it to Parliament. I have every reason to believe that this very efficient body has done that. All the time there is an increasing demand for more electric power, not only in the rural districts, but throughout the country. Apart from hydro-electric power, the only two ways in which that can be done is by the utilisation of coal —which is now in such short supply that, at very great expense, we have to import it, using dollars we can ill afford to use—or by the use of oil, which, again, we have to import. Why should we not make more and more use of such water power as we can use in this country?
The trouble is that in the remote parts of Wales the Authority has found it very

1405
difficult to supply the needs of cottages and farms scattered in the area of Plynlimmon.
Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. and learned Member made a similar plea when the House was debating this subject some years ago. Surely he will agree that the scheme we are discussing tonight does not in fact propose to supply electricity to areas adjacent to the works?
Mr. Davies: It is an additional power which the Authority requires to enable it to carry out duties placed upon it by Parliament. When it has those powers and is able to utilise them, I assume that we shall he in a better position to receive from it—that which now we have to go without—electricity in cottages and farms and power in our villages and small towns.
The hon. Member for Merioneth rightly referred to the tragedy of Ffestiniog. Time and again have I called attention to the tragedy of the rural countryside of Wales and to the fact that our people have not the work which might be given them nor the amenities which in this century ought to be given them. Anything which makes it easier to give them those amenities should receive the full support of every hon. Member in this House.
8.17 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Moyle: The chief qualification for my intervening in this debate is two simple facts. One is that I am a Welshman and the other that the Rheidol Valley was near my home.
I listened to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk), whose speech was derived entirely from his desire to maintain delightful natural amenities, particularly those of the Rheidol Valley. I thought he rather overstated his case and spoiled it by exaggeration, particularly when he spoke of the view of Plynlimmon being obliterated by the suggested civil engineering scheme that is now before us. I thought that a little too tall to be accepted even by as credulous a politician as myself. The hon. Member knows that we cannot have a reservoir except in a gorge or where there is a valley. It is very difficult to make a reservoir in any other conditions. The scheme stretches right along the valley and will form some delightful lakes at
1406
the very base of Plynlimmon. In answer to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who, apparently, is not now in his place, the scheme will in due course provide very interesting piscatorial pursuits for the hon. Member, who is afflicted by that particular pastime.
I recall the Elan Valley waterworks scheme, one of the finest pieces of engineering in Great Britain, and the bitter controversy which raged among predecessors of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and various rambling clubs throughout the country. I remember their saying how that wonderful valley in Radnorshire would be destroyed by that civil engineering scheme, but what was the result? Everyone knows that that wonderful scheme not only provided water for Birmingham and districts adjacent to Birmingham but enhanced the beauty of that part of Wales.
Consider, next, Lake Vyrnwy—a civil engineering scheme promoted and put through by Liverpool Corporation. That aroused great controversy. It was said that it would destroy the natural amenities of Wales. You are familiar with this part of Wales, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and you know that both the Birmingham reservoir and the Lake Vyrnwy schemes have enhanced the natural beauty of Wales.
This is really a question of striking the right balance between those who argue that virgin Nature should remain unsullied and those who say that Nature should be harnessed to the service of the community. Subject to very strong reservations, I am all for harnessing Nature to the service of the community.
I know that the Montgomeryshire County Council, the Cardigan County Council and the Aberystwyth Borough Council have been engaged for a considerable time in discussions and negotiations with the Electricity Authority. All the objections which were advanced by those county and local authorities have been met, and I am officially advised that these three authorities have given the proposals, with due safeguards, their official blessing.
I am content to rest my case for the scheme on the satisfaction which I derive from the knowledge that these public authorities in Wales are far better cus-

1407
todians of the natural beauties of our country than any of my hon. Friends who sponsor the various rambling societies throughout the country can hope to be.
Having struck a reasonable balance between the claims of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East and those of the hon. Member for Gravesend, I hope that they will join me in the Lobby and support the Bill.
8.23 p.m.
Mr. J. Idwal Jones: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones), I want to support the Bill mainly for two reasons.
Mr. W. R. Williams: Because you are his brother.
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has revealed an interest.
Those reasons are economic, human and social. The economic aspect of the Bill has already been mentioned, but a point which was not very clearly made was that this aspect of the Bill will come into view when we remember that the Bill seeks to increase the national power resources. That is the primary object of the Bill—to increase the resources of power in the whole of Britain. The incidental effect of the scheme will fall on Blaenau Ffestiniog, and that is where the social and human aspects come into view.
There are only two other methods of producing electricity as far as I know—from coal or from oil. As a nation we have no sources of natural oil. We also know that the days have gone when we could export coal. We are no longer a nation with a surplus of coal. The result is that, while we admit that we have to use coal and oil for the generation of electricity, it is essential in the present economic circumstances to supplement coal and oil with hydro-electricity.
The Blaenau Ffestiniog scheme is a novel scheme—a pump storage scheme, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) mentioned. This means that the encroachment on our coal and oil resources will be insignificant, and, as it turns out, there will not even be a wastage of water. It is an admirable scheme. When it is implemented the water resources of Blaenau Ffestiniog will remain intact. Even if the present
1408
scheme were to draw on the water supplies of Blaenau Ffestiniog, I do not suggest that Ffestiniog would be a dry place because, as we are very well aware, Blaenau Ffestiniog has broken the record for rainfall on more occasions than any other town in Britain.
Mr. W. R. Williams: What about Manchester?
Mr. Jones: It has even broken the record of Manchester.
Mr. Williams: And Greenock?
Mr. Jones: Yes, even Greenock. If anyone challenges my statement, I shall be happy to be given the figures.
This scheme is interesting because it will not even waste water. It is practically a solution to the problem of the wheel of perpetual motion.
There are objections to it, and I have heard some from both sides of the House. The first objection is that it interferes with the natural beauty of the area. I do not plead for the desecration of Nature. I will not give the reasons because they are obvious. I would point out that the landscape of Blaenau Ffestiniog is already scarred to a disgusting extent. It is one of the most beautiful valleys in Wales; in fact, Blaenau Ffestiniog means the end of the Vale of Ffestiniog. I am sorry to say that I have not heard many Welsh words pronounced correctly by those opposing this scheme tonight.
When anyone moves up the Vale of Ffestiniog he comes up against a granite mass of mountains—one of the most massive pieces of mountain land in the whole of Britain. It is one solid mass, but it has been scarred with mountainous tips of waste slate as if the interior of the mountain had belched it out. I suggest to the House that if this scheme in Blaenau Ffestiniog proves to be a scar on the landscape—and I do not admit that it will—then Blaenau Ffestiniog is so accustomed to the scars of nineteenth century industrialism that it is quite prepared and ready to put up with the extra scar, if that will help to relieve what has happened in the past.
There are other scars, however, and I want to draw attention to them for a few moments. They are historical scars.

1409
This may not seem relevant to the question, but it all comes into the picture. From 1821 to 1881, a period of 60 years, the population of Blaenau Ffestiniog multiplied tenfold, as did the production of slate. It was a period of unparallel prosperity. Yet that period has left its legacies, from which they are suffering at present. One of them is that during that period of great prosperity from Ffestiniog there radiated three railways. Ffestiniog was the starting point, not the end of the three railway systems. With the turn of the century the slate industry began to decline, and after 1918 it declined at an alarming rate, with the result that in Blaenau Ffestiniog we have an industry which has only a shadow of its former prosperity.
As we are aware, the spokes of a wheel are never joined together but are connected by a hub. So the railway systems in Ffestiniog were never linked together but were connected by the hub of the slate industry. But that hub has fallen and we find this interesting situation. Blaenau Ffestiniog had two railway systems but not one through system, with the result that other industries cannot be attracted to the area. Moreover, Blaenau Ffestiniog is far removed from coal and fuel resources, and because it has no through railway it is impossible to get other industries to come to the town, which is in a state of decline. It has no fuel resources, no transport resources and no other subsidiary industry of any importance.
Now comes this scheme. The scheme, as I have said, is necessary for the nation. It is not a scheme for Blaenau Ffestiniog alone. It is a scheme to increase the economic resources of the nation. It is only incidental, although I suggest it is also providential, that this scheme comes along, which will give to the people of Blaenau Ffestiniog a ray of hope. There is no area in Wales more suitable for this scheme, and I will outline the reasons for saying that. One is the contour and configuration of the land, which lends itself to this scheme. Where else in other parts of Wales can one find a natural lake situated in the hills which will supply the lake which is to be built below? The second is that there will be a minimum of human dislocation. It does not mean wholesale uprooting of families from their homes. It may mean the uprooting
1410
of one or two families, but they will be given houses in the near vicinity. Moreover, there is no loss of valuable agricultural land. The whole area lends itself to this scheme.
As I have already mentioned, the county council is behind it, the Ffestiniog council is behind it, and other interested bodies are behind it. It has the undivided approval of the people on the spot, who are the people best able to judge.
My last point is on the question of amenities. I have no desire to be uncharitable. I think, however, it is necessary to point out that every form of cultural landscape must inevitably limit the natural landscape. I think that stands to reason. If we build a house or construct a road or railroad, forming thereby a cultural landscape, it will necessarily have an effect on the natural landscape. We human beings have to walk and carry things about. Consequently, roads and railroads have to be built. The same thing applies here. If we are to live in Wales—and people have to live on something more substantial than fresh air and beautiful scenery—it is necessary to introduce a cultural landscape in the highest form of amenity.
I know that there are outside bodies which try to teach us in Wales how to look after our scenery. These bodies—I do not want to be uncharitable—are often self-constituted bodies to look after the beauties of the Principality. They have launched protest after protest and have been successful in protest after protest, so that many a good scheme in Wales has been pigeon-holed and many a good scheme has been delayed because of the protests of these bodies. These bodies from which all these protests come thrive on protests. I am sorry to say that as they thrive the inhabitants decline, and I think the time has arrived when we must stand up for the welfare of the inhabitants.
Therefore, I support the Bill because it adds to the economic resources of the country, because it has been so drawn as not to cast a blot upon the landscape, and because it brings a ray of hope, a gleam through the gloom which is overhanging this unfortunate area. The gleam may be temporary, but—who knows?—it may prove to be the beginning of a new era of prosperity.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, as the proposed scheme does not directly affect me or the people I represent, but, having heard the debate so far, I would say a few words about the three main preoccupations which affect the people of Wales when schemes of this nature are proposed. Perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary would like to know what they feel about these schemes that are brought forward by these rather impersonal corporations.
We feel, first, that the schemes are propounded without the slightest relation to the needs of the population immediately affected. I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that a scheme of this sort is bound to have United Kingdom economic relevance. We understand that perfectly, but we wish that the United Kingdom corporations, in this case the Central Electricity Authority, would study imaginatively the impact of this kind of scheme on the people most affected, and try to work into it an immediacy of benefit to the people from whom most of the contribution in amenity is expected. That is our first point.
Secondly, there is the feeling that, after all, the scenic amenities which we have in Wales need to be protected. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) that too much can be made by the wrong people of those scenic amenities and of tourism. I am going to stick my neck out and say that I think too much is said about the importance of tourism as a staple industry in Wales. It is a large industry, but its blessings economically are very mixed. We have in Wales only a very short summer, six, eight, perhaps ten weeks—and, of course, there are the Bank holidays and Christmas. Tourism as a staple industry is really not important to the basic life of the vast majority of the people of Wales, even of North Wales, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to remember that.
I would remind the House of the debate we had three years ago, when the case was made about appropriate schemes of this kind in Wales and about proper protection for the amenities. As a result of that, I think, the present proposals, as
1412
contained in Clause 26 of the Bill, make fair provision—I should say, adequate provision—for the preservation of scenery and other amenities. I shall not read out the Clause because it is very long, but subsection (1) governs the scheme in its relation to both the Rheidol Valley and Blaenau Ffestiniog. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power will reassure us on that point. I hope that the first part of Clause 26 governs the operation of the scheme in its excavatory character, both in respect of Cwm Rheidol and Blaenau Ffestiniog.
Bound up with the feeling that the schemes are brought up in Wales with very little concern for the immediate benefit of the rural population, and that our scenic amenities may be rather arbitrarily affected, there is a feeling about the schemes coming to us, at it were, from over the border. I do not want to be unreasonable, but we feel that this is Wales and that these United Kingdom corporations, acting according to the lights of the statutes imposed upon them, come along and propose schemes without proper consultation with the people of Wales, locally and nationally.
I hope that the debate, like other similar debates, will cause the Government to re-examine once again the case for an electricity authority in Wales, in respect of certain aspects of the work to be done, which will mobilise both the good will and the energy of the Welsh people in the use which is to be made of their natural resources—not only of the scenery but of the water power. I throw that out once more as a suggestion. It is really important that schemes of this kind should arise partly at least from the desires and the activities of the people who are most closely concerned.
8.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I should like to deal with the points which were put to me by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), but his questions are not questions which I can answer, because this is a Private Bill and I am not speaking on behalf of the promoters of the Bill in the same sense as one speaks on behalf of a Departmental Bill. I think that the House understands the difficulty that that creates.

1413
As to the hon. Member's first point, on the desire for better local contacts and what is best described as public relations on the part of an authority or a nationalised board with the residents in the locality, I feel sure that the Central Electricity Authority as well as both the electricity boards operating within Wales will take heed of the hon. Member's words. I am sure that it would be their wish to try to take all steps to ensure that their relations are as good and as full as they possibly can be.
I shall be saying something later on about amenities but, on the hon. Member's particular point about Clause 26, I am sure that he will not expect me to interpret the Bill to him. That is not within my province at all, but, speaking personally, I do not think that there can be any doubt at all about the meaning of the words,
"In the construction and maintenance of the works authorised by this Act the Authority shall have regard"—
to the preservation of the amenities. That must clearly apply to both schemes and all the works proposed under the Bill.
The hon. Member sought to take me rather wide of the mark in proposing a specific electricity authority in Wales. I am afraid that he must allow me to wait for another and more suitable occasion to repeat to him the arguments which I have repeated in the past on similar suitable occasions.
I think it is usual in these debates for the House to want to hear the Government's views about the Private Bills that we debate and it is, therefore, my intention to try to give that information, as shortly and as helpfully as I can to the House. I should like to say that I am personally very grateful to the hon. Members who have expressed their views, because it is always helpful to us to know what those views are on a subject of this kind. Perhaps, as I am in favour of the Bill receiving a Second Reading, I am more grateful to those who have expressed views which are in accord with my own personal views than to those who have expressed themselves in the contrary direction. Nevertheless, I think it would be of some help if I ran briefly through the history of this matter, because it does go back quite a long time.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) referred to
1414
some action taken by his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), who, we all regret, is not with us during this debate, because he has always taken a very constructive and helpful part in these subjects, and I personally know that he has in days gone by traversed on foot the ground which is affected by this scheme in order to investigate the position for himself.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East was quite right in saying that the present proposals of the Ffestiniog scheme—and I apologise for my pronunciation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, very good."]—are not the same as those of the earlier scheme. The point that I am seeking to make is that the area of territory which is affected is substantially or broadly the same area of territory, the effect upon which was approved by the right hon. Gentleman in 1951. Although the scheme is different, and this is a proposal for a bigger capacity and a more expensive scheme, the amenity aspect is not substantially differently affected by this scheme.
As far as the Rheidol scheme is concerned, this again is a different scheme from the one which was originally proposed, but, once again, the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman approved in 1951 affected very largely the same amenity territory as is affected by this scheme. That is the only point I was seeking to make in that connection.
As the House is aware, a General Election intervened before the approval given by the right hon. Gentleman could take effect, and, therefore, after the Election of 1951, my right hon. Friend, who then became Minister of Fuel and Power, confirmed the approval, and the schemes, which included the territories affected by these two scheme in the proposals in the form in which they were then contained, came before this House, which approved the Second Reading of the Private Bill at that time.
That scheme was subsequently withdrawn for various reasons, mostly of a technical character, which were ascertained after the Second Reading of the Bill, which made it desirable that the Central Electricity Authority, or, as it then was, the British Electricity Authority, should take them back and reconsider them. After further consultation, these revised proposals have been

1415
brought forward again, and again my right hon. Friend has given his consent on these grounds—that, in his view, the consultations which the Authority has had with the various societies and authorities particularly interested in amenity subjects had resulted in a broad measure of substantial agreement between those societies and the Authority.
Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend says that schemes contained in the last Bill were withdrawn for technical reasons. I have been trying to find out what the technical reasons were. Can we be told what they were? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was at pains to impress upon the House earlier how careful the Authority was before it presented its proposals. Yet within three months of presenting them in 1952 the Authority capitulated on technical grounds.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I think it would not be difficult to satisfy my hon. Friend, but I do not think this is the right opportunity for doing so because the point is concerned primarily with schemes not contained in this Bill. However, the primary cause in the case of the Ffestiniog scheme was a geological one; owing to the fissured character of the ground then proposed for the containing of the water, it was found that it would be necessary to go to the expense of concreting.
Mr. Blenkinsop: My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) said very clearly in the debate on 1st April, 1952:
"When I agreed to these three projects,"—
that included the smaller Ffestiniog scheme, but not the Rheidol scheme—
"I warned everybody in the clearest terms that, if I continued to hold that office, I would probably not agree, either then or in the future, to any other scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 1519.]
That seems to make my right hon. Friend's position very clear.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I think the right hon. Gentleman had previously approved a Rheidol scheme, although the present Rheidol scheme had not come before the House at that time.
The other reasons why my right hon. Friend particularly gave his consent on this occasion was that, in his view, the
1416
scheme is a useful contribution towards the production of electricity, which we all need; it is an economical and efficient method of doing so; and it is a coal-saver.
The Bill has already passed through another place, and on Second Reading there certain aspects were very carefully considered indeed and a direction was given to the Select Committee concerning the agricultural aspect. The Select Committee reported, among other things—I think one is justified in quoting the report, for it is a published document—that the total area lost to agriculture—I am dealing with this particularly because my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) was referring to the agricultural aspect—does not exceed 800 acres taking the two schemes together, and of that area 750 acres are fit for hill pastures only. In consequence of that, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was satisfied that it was not necessary for him to intervene in connection with the Bill owing to the relatively small production from the land which was affected.
Another aspect of the matter which particularly attracted attention in another place, as it has done here, is the amenity aspect. The Committee in another place considered the question in great detail, and as a result of its consideration substantial adjustments were made in the schemes as they were proposed, and the vast majority of the pipelines to which objection was taken are proposed to be laid underground, which is a very considerable help.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) asked me for an assurance. He must know from his own experience that it is impossible for a Minister to give an assurance upon a matter of this sort because he has not the power or the authority to see that his assurance is carried out. If an assurance is to be given, it would have to be by the Electricity Authority itself. I hope to be able to convince him without such an assurance.
The hon. Gentleman has read the protection which already exists in the Bill. It is exceedingly wide. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman knows that when the matter was before another place, the Committee heard petitions against the

1417
Bill from—or let me say, first, that petitions were lodged against the Bill by the Montgomeryshire and Cardiganshire County Councils, the Aberystwyth Corporation and the South-West Wales River Board. All these petitions were withdrawn before the Committee stage of the Bill as a result of the undertaking which the Authority gave to provide protective Clauses in the Bill. So, evidently, the Authority is not loth to provide undertakings to afford the protection which the local authorities considered necessary.
Petitions were heard from the Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales, the British Mountaineering Council, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, the Ramblers' Association, the Youth Hostels Association and the National Trust. I think, therefore, that we can safely consider that the matter has received full and careful consideration. The point which I wish to make tonight is that now that the Bill has been presented in this House, and the time for petitions has expired, there is no petition from anyone of these organisations at all. Nor is there any petition on any general ground of amenity whatsoever.
Mr. Ede: It is expensive.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is expensive. But if these societies thought fit to go to the expense of petitioning in one House it would be strange if they did not make their views known, either by way of petition or by some more direct means, in the other House, if they were not satisfied with the treatment they received in the House to which they went first.
The assumption must be that all these organisations have been satisfied on matters of amenity about which they were apprehensive, and that any remaining points which there may be are such as may perfectly well be dealt with during the Committee stage. I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East will consider that the action already taken, and the attitude of the many societies which have been concerned, is a sufficient safeguard for his conscience and will permit him to refrain from voting against the Measure on amenity grounds.
1418
Let me now turn to the merits of the proposal, because it seems to be some time since we heard anything about that. Broadly speaking, the position about electricity in Wales is that last year, 1954–55, the maximum demand at any one moment was 730 megawatts and the maximum generating capacity at that time was 704 megawatts; showing a deficiency between the capacity and the maximum demand. By 1960–61 it is calculated that the estimated demand will rise to no fewer than 1,100 megawatts. This illustrates the rapidity with which the boards are developing the countryside as well as the powerful industrial and domestic amenities. It will, therefore, be clear to the House that the provision of further generating capacity is essential in one form or another. The question is how that is to be provided, whether by the natural resources of the country or by coal-raised steam or oil-raised steam,
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred to these schemes as the first of a series, or at any rate as a continuation of a series, of hydro-electric schemes of which many others would be coming along. I can only tell the House that my right hon. Friend and I have no knowledge of any other schemes of a hydro-electric character which are to be brought forward in Wales at present. It may be that my hon. Friend knows better than but I can only say that we have no knowledge of such schemes.
Mr. Nabarro: The statutory position is that my right hon. Friend gives sanction to the Authority to bring in Bills of this sort and the Authority asks for one scheme at a time. It is a well-known fact that in the headquarters of the area board concerned the whole of four succeeding schemes have been completed, and in due course they will form the subject of an application to the Minister for sanction to bring in Bills.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend and I are referring to the same things, because these proposals arose from the Central Electricity Authority and not from the area board.
Mr. Nabarro: Splitting hairs.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am trying to be as helpful as I can, and I can only repeat that we have no knowledge, either

1419
officially or unofficially, if I may put it that way, of any proposals for bringing forward further schemes of this sort.
I will now pass to some of the more detailed aspects of the matter, although I do not want to get involved in too much detail because I feel that that is a matter for the Committee stage and not for the Second Reading of a Bill of this sort. There has been a good deal of challenge as to the technical and economic merits of these schemes. I think that before the House decides it is only fair to try and put such information as I have before it.
The Ffestiniog scheme is, as I think one hon. Member mentioned, the largest proposal for a pump storage scheme in the world, so that if it goes through Wales will have another record to put to its credit. Its capacity will be about 300 megawatts, which is not in itself a very big station, but it is a very useful contribution towards the production of electricity in the area. It should be completed in steps of 100 megawatts annually between 1961 and 1964.
The cost will be £14¿ million compared with £25¼ million for a 300megawatt station burning coal with which to raise power by steam, so that there is an actual saving in capital costs there. The cost works out at £49 per kilowatt installed, which is the usual measurement, as the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) will understand, as against the accepted current figure for a coal-fired steam-raising plant of £65 per kilowatt installed.
This means that electricity will be produced there at a figure of -6d. per unit as against the normal figure of a modern, efficient coal-fired steam-raising plant of 62d. Therefore, in capital costs and in unit production costs this is a cheaper station than a comparable coal-burning station.
It has one further very great advantage. As the House is aware, it is a peak load station. During the off-peak load period it refreshes itself, so to speak, by receiving electricity from the grid when a surplus of electricty is being produced in the base load stations—which have to operate at night in excess of the demand for electricity—and using that electricity constructively to pump water back into
1420
the upper reservoir so that it has power available at peak hours on the following day to operate its own generators.
When we advance further and run our base load stations on nuclear power instead of steam, the immediate advantage will be seen, because we shall save the whole cost of the coal which is burnt in order to produce electricity used to pump the water up again. At present, that cannot be saved because the coal-fired station has to be kept in operation overnight, as it is a base load station, but when it is burning only nuclear energy—in which case the station also has to be kept going all night—the cost of the coal is saved. This scheme represents the ideal and most beneficial way of using the new method and the old method in harness.
I now turn to the Rheidol scheme. This is also a very unusual type of hydroelectric scheme. The Ffestiniog scheme was unusual because it was the biggest pump-storage scheme in the world. The Rheidol scheme is unusual because it will use water over a drop of 950 feet. We sometimes think of the Niagara Falls as carrying a lot of water down a steep place very fast and rather far, but the drop in the Niagara Falls is only about 120 feet, and power is generated in a different way. In this case the drop is 950 feet, which creates considerable engineering difficulties.
To harness the natural resources of the country the scheme has been constructed in three steps. The top reservoir will be 1100 feet above sea level; the middle reservoir will be 830 feet above sea level, and the regulating pond at the bottom will be 150 feet above sea level. There are three stations, one at each level. The first produces 12 megawatts; the second, 36 megawatts; and the third—which is a little chap constructed so as not to waste the available power from the pond —one megawatt.
I now turn to the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster.
Mr. Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend leaves the Rheidol scheme, I would point out that a few moments ago he laboured the economy in cost per kilowatt installed in respect of the Ffestiniog scheme, because it happened to suit his argument. He said that the cost was £49 per kilowatt

1421
installed. He has now referred to the Rheidol scheme, which will cost £118 per kilowatt installed, which is nearly double the cost of a steam station.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: That is the point which I was going to argue with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Nabarro: The Minister said that he was going to turn to coal.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I said I was going to turn to my hon. Friend's argument. As he quite rightly says, the cost of the Rheidol scheme is £5¿ million, which represents about £118 per kilowatt installed. My hon. Friend says that these schemes, between them, are the equivalent of an expenditure of £290 to save one ton of coal——
Mr. Nabarro: Per annum.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Per annum—but that argument, as I understand it, is based upon a comparison of the capital cost of putting up this station—namely, £20 million—and the amount of coal saved in the operation. That is not the correct basis of computation at all, and it contains a fallacy, because it omits to take into account the fact that the operation is producing electricity. The object of this exercise is to produce electricity. If my hon. Friend wants to produce 350 megawatts of electricity—which is the amount we produce by these two schemes—at current rates by coal-fired steam stations, it will cost him £27 million.
Mr. Nabarro: Rubbish.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My hon. Friend says "rubbish." I assure him that it is not rubbish. That is the approximate capital cost for a station of that size, whereas the capital cost for these stations is £20 million. Therefore, not only are we getting the 350 megawatts at a cheaper rate but are also saving that amount of coal.
My hon. Friend also said that the better way of providing for a peak load of electricity was by the installation of a small diesel-oil powered plant—I think it was—to produce for a short period electricity to meet the essential peak, and to bolster up the supplies from the peak-load stations. He cited Aberystwyth. The cost of electricity from those peak-load stations by hydro-electric methods is ·6d.
1422
per unit. The cost of production in Aberystwyth by the oil-fired plant which they have there is 1·2d. per unit. Therefore, it is double the price.
I have detained the House longer than I intended, but I have tried to pick out such points as I could answer during the course of the debate. It is a matter of very real importance to the country as well as to the industry to be able to save in this particular locality as much as 70,000 tons of coal per annum. That is what it would necessitate burning, additional to what will be burnt to produce electricity to pump up the water to Ffestiniog if the whole of this electricity were produced by a coal-fired system.
It is true that these are peak-load stations, but we believe they are economical, from the information which has been given to us by the Central Electricity Authority. That is the reason why my right hon. Friend has granted his certificate. We believe that the system is efficient. Ffestiniog is a perfect complement to the development of nuclear power production of electricity, and Rheidol is itself a most useful coal saver.
One of my hon. Friends referred to the possibility of droughts at Rheidol. The average rainfall at Rheidol is 80 inches a year, and it has exceptionally gone up to something like 160 inches a year. We are hoping that from these points of view as well we shall be able to take the maximum possible advantage of natural conditions. We consider that these are useful if somewhat small schemes, and we commend them to the House.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, can he help us on one other point? He has made a most lucid and helpful exposition of the case, but many of us find ourselves in a real difficulty. Apart from the transmission lines, we have not any grave objection to the Ffestiniog scheme. Certainly, the last thing any of us would want to do is to act contrary to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones). Therefore, we do not want to vote against this Measure.
On the other hand, we have very grave misgivings indeed about the Rheidol scheme. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that most of the criticisms tonight have been directed towards that particular scheme. We appreciate that the Minister

1423
cannot commit the Central Electricity Authority on this point, but can he give an assurance that he will put to it the criticisms which have been made in this debate, and see whether, perhaps, during the further stages of the Bill it might be possible for the Authority to consider going somewhat further towards meeting the criticisms than it has been able to do so far?
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that transmission lines come into this Measure, but are dealt with under the normal procedure applicable to transmission lines. There is no reference to them in the Bill itself. I can assure the House that I will convey to the Authority the feelings of the House about amenities. If I might suggest it, I think that it might be helpful if I invited the Authority to meet hon. Members who are concerned about this. I am quite sure that its representatives would be only too delighted to meet hon. Members, although, as the House appreciates, I cannot commit the Authority to do so. I do know that it has endeavoured—and hopes that it has succeeded—to fulfil most of the requirements of the amenity interests. I believe that it has done very much more than many hon. Members seem to appreciate. I think that such a meeting, which hon. Members could attend and then inform the House, would be very helpful.
Mr. C. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is apparently suggesting that the Authority should meet some bodies outside Wales. I should have thought that the people living on the spot throughout the year—who are more concerned about their amenities at all times of the year than are those occasionally visiting the district—should also be consulted.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I had not in mind consultation of the sort to which I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. Those bodies have already been consulted. I have in mind more particularly representatives of Welsh interests in the House who might wish to meet representatives of the Central Electricity Authority in order to see whether the criticisms expressed could be overcome. I do not think that it would be setting a precedent or creating any difficulty to have such a meeting.
9.18 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I am sure that the House will be grateful for what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and in particular for his reply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I should like to express my sympathy with him in the interruptions to which he was subjected by the hon. Member for Kidderminster when trying to give a detailed, technical reply to the statements that had been made. His answer was complete and convincing. The air of great superiority with which the hon. Member for Kidderminster addressed us when moving the rejection of the Bill was, I think, suitably modified by the modest way in which the Parliamentary Secretary gave us the actual facts of the situation.
There was one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Kidderminster which impressed me, and I hope that we may have an assurance about it. Undoubtedly, the load factor at these stations does appear to be very low. The hon. Gentleman mentions the very considerable increase in the demand for electricity that is anticipated during the next five or six years. May I take it that the increased demand during that time will result in some improvement in that load factor? If so, it would very considerably modify some of the estimates of cost that have been made.
I have this to say about amenities. People still believe that the most beautiful parts of this country—and I mean both England and Wales—are the results of what nature did. Most of the beauties of this country in the last 200 years have been created, first, by the efforts of a gentleman known as Mr. Capability Brown. He took places that were quite uninteresting and, by the skilful use of plantations of trees and by the creation of artificial water, gave to those places a distinction and a beauty that today is sometimes ascribed to a power even higher than Mr. Capability Brown. One is reminded of the gardener who, when he was congratulated by the local parson on what he was doing with the assistance of a Higher Power, replied, "You ought to have seen the place when the Higher Power had it to Himself."
Those of us who can recall some of the schemes for reservoirs in different parts of the country where attention has been paid to preserving, and even adding

1425
to, the natural advantages of the landscape, know the capabilities there are here. I recollect many debates in this House on Glen Affric. I suggest to anyone who doubts the capability of hydroelectric schemes to add to the beauty of an already beautiful district that they should see Glen Affric now, particularly that they should go to Loch Mollardoch, which was quite inaccessible before the hydro-electric board made it accessible to the general community.
Barrator, the reservoir which supplies Plymouth, is another notable example of the way in which planned water can add to what before the water was placed there was already a beautiful district. I am not at all sure that even Thirlmere is not better than it was, although there—
despite the heavy rainfall—occasionally drought seems to lower the water detrimentally to the landscape.
I say this because I want my hon. Friends and friends outside this House to realise what has been done in the past and which, with the far greater resources which civil engineers have in these days, can be repeated. If the schemes are properly used they can be not merely useful, but add greatly to the permanent beauty of our beautiful island. I sincerely trust that tonight it will not be thought necessary to divide against this Bill.
Question put, That "now" stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 23.

Division No. 22.]

AYES

[9.24 p.m

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Holmes, Horace

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Anstruther-Cray, Major W. J.

Howard, John (Test)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Armstrong, C. W.

Hubbard, T. F.

Parker, J.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J, M.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Pott, H. P.

Balniel, Lord

Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Barber, Anthony

Hunter, A. E.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Bidgood, J. C.

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

Probert, A. R.

Bishop, F. P.

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Proctor, W. T.

Blackburn, F.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Bottom, Sir A, C.

Iremonger, T. L.

Redmayne, M.

Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S.W.)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Roper, Sir Harold

Boyle, Sir Edward

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Ross, William

Brockway, A. F.

Jones, Rt. Hon.A. Creech (Wakefield)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

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

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Cary, Sir Robert

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Channon, H.

Kershaw, J. A.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Clunie, J.

Lagden, G. W.

Sparks, J. A.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Spearman, A. C. M.

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

Lawton, G. M.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Currie, G. B. H.

Leavey, J. A.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Storey, S.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Legh, Hon, Peter (Petersfield)

Studholme, H. G.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Errington, Sir Erie

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

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

MoCallum, Major Sir Duncan

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

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Gibson, C. W.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Touche, Sir Gordon

Godber, J. B.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr R. (Nantwich)

Maddan, Martin

Vickers, Miss J. H.

Green, A.

Mahon, S

Wall, Major Patrick

Greenwood, Anthony

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Warbey, W. N.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfd, E.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Gurden, Harold

Mawby, R. L.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.(Penrith & Border)

Hale, Leslie

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne valley)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Mitchlson, G. R.

Willie, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Wills, C. (Bridgwater)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Moyle, A.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Nicholls, Harmar

rates, V. (Ladywood)

Heath, Edward

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

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Oswald, T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Holman, P.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Mr. P. Thomas and

Mr. T. W. Jones.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Drayson, G. B.

Powell, J.Enooh

Baldwin, A. E.

Freeth, D. K.

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

Barlow, Sir John

Clover, D.

Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

Barter, John

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Body, R.F.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Bryan, P.

Mathew, R.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Crouch, R. F.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Mr. Nabarro and Mr. Kirk.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Page, R. C.

Question put and agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION BILL
Again considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(THE AGREEMENT AND THE CORPORATION.)
Question again proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
9.33 p.m.
Mr. Warbey: Before the proceedings were interrupted for the consideration of a matter of public enterprise, I was endeavouring to call attention to the question of definition in the Articles of Agreement of the International Finance Corporation.
You, Sir Charles, had just ruled that it was not in order for me to discuss a precise point on these Articles. So, in deference to your Ruling, I will leave that aspect and return to the general question of what, in fact, is being defined in Clause 1. The Committee has got into a considerable muddle on this, and I am afraid the blame for the muddle must be attached to the Government. It has already been admitted, in speaking of the Agreement which this Clause attempts to define, that something different is meant in Clause 1 from what is meant in Clause 2. I think that the Economic Secretary shook his head, but no doubt he will be able to explain this matter in due course.
I would point out that what we are contemplating in this Clause is a matter not of one or two but of three different types of Agreement. First, there are the words in Clause 1:
"In this Act 'the Agreement' means any agreement which may be signed and accepted on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in pursuance of Articles approved…
1428
I have been occupying a little of the interim period in looking through the proposed Articles of Agreement of the I.F.C., and I find that there are quite a number of possibilities, within these Articles, of agreements being concluded between the Government and the Corporation. The Bill refers to
"…any agreement which may be signed and accepted …in pursuance of Articles.…"
It is quite clear that we must take into consideration any agreements which may arise in connection with any of the Articles out of which agreements may be necessary.
I notice, for example, that by Section 1 of Article III
"The Corporation may make investments of its funds in productive private enterprises in the territories of its members. The existence of a government or other public interest in such an enterprise shall not necessarily preclude the Corporation from making an investment therein."
If the Corporation is to make an investment in a public enterprise in a member country that will have to be the subject of an agreement between the Government of the member country and the Corporation, and, in our case, not only in connection with enterprises in the United Kingdom but in any territory for which the Government are responsible.
Section 3 (ii) of Article III says:
"the Corporation shall not finance an enterprise in the territories of any member if the member objects to such financing."
Presumably, some procedure will have to be devised and become the subject of an agreement by which the Government of a member country can be notified that the Corporation is engaged or is proposing to engage in financial activities within the Government's territory. Clearly, the Corporation cannot, as it were, run about within the United Kingdom seeking for investments in productive private enterprises, to which investments the Government may want to object, without some form of agreement by which the Government shall at least be notified of the

1429
intentions of the Corporation within their territory, the territory for which the member Government are responsible.
Section 5 of the same Article says:
"Funds received by or payable to the Corporation in respect of an investment of the Corporation made in any member's territories pursuant to Section 1 of this Article shall not be free, solely by reason of any provision of this Agreement, from generally applicable foreign exchange restrictions, regulations and controls in force in the territories of that member."
I cannot see how it can be ensured that the operations of the Corporation shall not conflict with currency regulations, exchange controls, and so on, without the conclusion of an agreement, and possibly several agreements, between the Corporation and the Government of the member country, which may be the Government of this country.
Section 6 (i) of the same Article makes certain provisions for the borrowing of funds and the making of a public sale of the obligations of the Corporation in the markets of a member. It says that in that case,
"… the Corporation shall have obtained the approval of that member and of the member in whose currency the obligations are to be denominated…"
There is another case in which agreement will have to be made with the member Government concerned. Section 9 of Article IV states that
"each member shall designate its central bank as a depository in which the Corporation may keep holdings of such member's currency or other assets of the Corporation…."
It so happens that in this country the central bank is a nationalised institution under the control of the Treasury. Therefore, it is inevitable that under this Section it will be necessary for the Corporation to enter into an agreement with the Government of this country to regulate the manner in which its funds are deposited in the Bank of England.
Sir E. Boyle: On a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member unnecessarily, but the long recitation which he is giving to the Committee is based on a misunderstanding. "Any agreement" in Clause 1 refers to any agreement which may be signed in pursuance of the Articles which the House has had before it in the White Paper, but the indefinite "any" refers to the contingency that there may be no agreement, not the
1430
possibility that there may be different agreements arising out of the same Articles. Therefore, I think that the hon. Member's meticulous analysis is based on a misreading of Clause 1.
The Chairman: I think that that is the right position to take. This first Clause is simply a definition Clause and it defines the machinery. When we were in Committee before the House considered the Private Bill, I tried to keep the Committee in order on that point. This is only a machinery Clause.
Mr. Warbey: I am dealing purely with a question of definition, because what we are trying to elucidate is what the Clause means. The Economic Secretary has given an interpretation but, after all, it is only his interpretation. I do not know what kind of authority it has. It seems to me that it is quite possible for a lawyer, or indeed a layman, to read the Clause in a quite different sense and in the sense which I have attributed to it, namely, that it refers to any agreement signed and accepted by the Government in pursuance of the Articles.
All that I have done is to run through the Articles to show that in pursuance of them there may be a necessity not for one Agreement but for a number of different agreements and therefore that what we are asked to consider in discussing this Clause is not one Agreement but any agreement which may arise in pursuance of any of the Articles of the International Finance Corporation. It is all very well for the Economic Secretary to say that he puts another interpretation on it, but that is not an interpretation which I and possibly other hon. Members may accept.
The Chairman: Perhaps hon. Members may not accept it, but that is the interpretation which I have been putting on it for a long time now. I must ask the hon. Member to stick to the point. I may be wrong, but I am responsible and that is my opinion. This is a machinery Clause, and if hon. Members do not keep within my Ruling, I must ask them to resume their seats, because my patience is exhausted.
Mr. Warbey: With respect, I am not trying to be obstructive or difficult. I thought that I was keeping strictly within your Ruling, Sir Charles, that the Clause is concerned solely with definitions. All

1431
that I am seeking to do is to find out what we are defining and what the definitions mean, but that is still not clear. However, I will leave that point. I think I have made it sufficiently for it to be appreciated by the Economic Secretary. If it does not mean what I suggest it could mean, then presumably what it may mean is the procedure by which the Government accept and accede to the whole of the Articles of the International Finance Corporation.
9.45 p.m.
If that is the case, then I understand we are concerned with the procedure which is laid down in Article IX of the Agreement, the first section of which is headed "Entry into Force." Here I think I am entitled to ask whether, in fact, what is referred to in the first sentence of the Clause is the procedure by which the Government will accede to the Articles of Agreement of the International Finance Corporation; in other words, that what we are concerned with here is the authorisation of the deposits of the instrument of accession to the Agreement.
If that is the case, I think it is perhaps worth calling attention to the fact that the Government are required to deposit that instrument in a form which would guarantee our accession to the terms of the Article without any reservation whatever and without any amendments. That is a matter of some seriousness for this Committee, and, I would suggest, for the whole House, because it brings us back to the question whether or not we are debarred by the wording of this Bill from properly discussing the details of the Articles of Agreement.
The Chairman: We are debarred, and this is the last warning that I shall give on this matter.
Mr. Hale: May I venture to submit, Sir Charles—I do not want to come into conflict with the Chair—previous Rulings of Mr. Speaker on this point and also refer you to the observations in Erskine May?
The Chairman: It may be that Mr. Speaker gave a different Ruling on the matter, but we are now in Committee, and I am in charge. My Rulings must be carried out, and I am getting rather tired of saying so.
Mr. Hale: I am submitting to you the Rulings contained in Erskine May, and I apologise very much for the fact that, when the matter came up before, I was not armed with the authority and could not raise the point. I have since had an opportunity of referring to the authorities, and I would respectfully refer you to the authority of Erskine May in page 533, paragraph 2. I think I have the latest edition, which says:
"Bills to confirm agreements.—When a bill is introduced to give effect to an agreement or to confirm a scheme and the agreement or scheme is scheduled to the bill as a completed document, amendments cannot be made to the schedule, but an amendment to the clauses of the bill for the purpose of withholding legislative effect from the document contained in the schedule is in order, as are also amendments to those clauses which deal with matters not determined by the document contained in the schedule."
The reference given is to three Bills first discussed in 1917, one of which was the Coal Mines Control Agreement Bill. I can say quite fairly that the matter was raised on Second Reading, in the next volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT in Committee, and in the next volume on Report, and the result was that Mr. Speaker gave a considered Ruling, in which he said:
"That alteration will have to be made in the Bill. It cannot be made in the Schedule. —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1917; Vol. 98, c. 2409.]
That means that if we want to vary the agreement, we must make the alteration in the Bill.
On consideration of the matter on Report, the matter was raised again, when the Chairman of Committees was then in charge. The passage between Mr. Lough and the Chairman went as follows:
"Mr. LOUGH: Yes; but with great respect, if it is in order and can be carried by the House, will it not affect your Ruling that the House cannot do anything that affects the agreement? If it carries that Amendment, it will knock a substantial part of the agreement out. That is the point.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. It is clearly within the power of the House to leave out that part of a penalty Clause and to say that they will not agree to the imposition of a penalty in that matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th November, 1917; Vol. 99, c. 1849.]
Again, referring to the agreement by way of Amendment to Clause 1, Mr. Speaker gave a considered Ruling at col.

1433
901 of Vol. 100 on an intervention by Sir Gordon Hewart. Sir Charles Cory sought to move an Amendment to Clause 1 which would affect the terms of the Agreement in the Schedule. The Report reads as follows:
"Sir CHARLES CORY: I beg to refer you to your Ruling that though it might not be possible in the agreement itself to alter the terms of the agreement, it might be possible in the Bill to alter the terms of the agreement.
Mr. SPEAKER: I was not so well acquainted when I made that observation as I am now with the agreement and with the Bill. I understand that the hon. Member agrees that if his Amendment were inserted, it would completely alter the character of the agreement. If that be so, of course, it is not admissible, because the object of the Bill, as the first words of the Clause show, is to confirm the Agreement"
There was then a good deal of discussion in which the then Attorney-General, Sir Gordon Hewart, intervened, and Sir Charles Cory said:
"…I do not think this point has been raised as applicable to those who are not parties to the agreement. There is nothing contrary to any ruling in defining the agreement so far as it applies to those coal owners who have not been parties to it."
On that, Mr. Speaker, said:
"The fact that the matter has been discussed in Committee does not preclude the House from discussing it on Report; therefore, the subject is open for discussion now. The Amendment of the hon. Member, instead of being as it is on the Paper, would be after the word 'trustees' to insert the words 'not parties to the agreement.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1917; Vol. 100, c. 899–901.]
On Report, Mr. Speaker specifically permitted a manuscript Amendment to be introduced to permit a variation in the agreement. In case it be said that the fact that the agreement was embodied in the Schedule was of any importance, the matter was again raised on the National Assembly of the Church of England (Powers) Bill. In this case the agreement was not in the Schedule, but was referred to in a White Paper just as it is today. The Report reads:
"MAJOR HAYWARD: On a point of order, Sir. I think it would be of assistance in the attitude of many hon. Members to the Second Reading if we got your ruling on this point. It is:
'an Act to confer powers on the National Assembly of the Church of England constituted in accordance with the constitution attached as an Appendix to the Addresses presented to His Majesty by the Convocations of Canterbury and York.'
1434
The hon. Member, in moving the Second Reading, referred to Amendments in Committee, and I should like to ask whether it will be possible in Committee to move Amendments altering the Constitution of the National Assembly as set forth in the Appendix, and particularly whether it will be possible to move Amendments altering the Constitution of the House of Laiety as set forth in Section 4 of the Schedule to the Appendix.
MR. SPEAKER: No; it would not be possible to move any Amendments which would alter the constitution of the National Assembly. That is provided for … in the Appendix to the Addresses from the Convocations of Canterbury and York. In regard to the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Privy Council or the relations of the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly to the Ecclesiastical Committee, I think it would be open to the House to make Amendments there but not in the constitution of the Church Assembly itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th December, 1919; Vol. 120, c. 1823.]
The final Bill on which this subject came up to be discussed on a Ruling from the Chair—a matter of great constitutional importance—was the Bill that settled the powers of the Eire Parliament following the division under the Irish Free State Constitution Bill. The Chairman said he wished to say a word or two on a matter of order before the Committee stage of the Bill began. He said that Clause 1 gave the force of law to all the Articles set forth in the Schedules to the Bill, which were Schedules of an Irish Act. He added that they were specific documents and that no alterations could be made in them which would be inconsistent with the description in Clause 1. He said that it followed that if Clause 1 was once passed, no Amendments at all to the Schedules of the Bill would be possible. He pointed out that if any hon. Member wished to amend either of the Schedules, he must do so by way of addition to or proviso in Clause 1.
That was the specific Ruling that I had in mind, that this matter can only be discussed on Clause 1. I am sure the hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench would agree that at an earlier stage we were a little misled about the meaning of Clause 1—quite involuntarily, I know, The position is that Clause I refers to an agreement, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it must be the Agreement in the Articles, and that is settled by the second Clause of Section 9 of the Articles which says that they must be passed without any amendment. That means that we accept them without amendment, or reject them.

1435
In the circumstances of the Ruling on the Irish Constitution Bill, in which the Committee stage went down, there was a discussion of Amendments on the Question, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill." The Ruling was that the matter could only be discussed on Clause 1.
May I say, in conclusion—I will conclude, as I have no intention of unduly detaining the Committee—that there are ample precedents in the way of treaties. It is not unknown in this House to bring in a single-Clause Bill under which we accept or reject a treaty. In my recollection—I will not quote the Austrian State Treaty because there the discussion lasted only for a few minutes, although a discussion did take place—it has always been recognised as competent for an hon. Member to say about Clause 1, "I do not propose to vote for the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' because, in my view, there are aspects of this Treaty which are repugnant to the sensibilities of the House, and I vote against it for that reason."
I seek your guidance, Sir Charles. It is a point of difficulty, because the Bill has been drawn in a way which misled some of us in the first instance. The Bill is one of three Clauses. The first virtually adopts the Agreement. It authorises the Government either to adopt that Agreement or the thing falls to the ground. That is clear, and the hon. Gentleman himself does not dispute it. The Agreement must be adopted without amendment or not adopted in conformity with Article 9.
The second Clause is for the making of some international commitments in accordance with the Agreement. Surely, when we are spending £5 million, we are entitled to discuss where the £5 million should be paid and give the reasons why it should not be paid?
The Chairman: This is not a confirming Bill, it is a machinery Bill. The Articles apply to something quite different.
Sir E. Boyle: I think that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is under a misapprehension. Clause I does not confirm anything; it is simply a definition Clause. What is required of the Government with regard to the
1436
Articles of Agreement is that we must deposit an Instrument showing the Government have accepted the Agreement and taken all the steps necessary to carry out their obligations. The United Kingdom Government require authority to accept two obligations. The first is the payment of a subscription—which comes under Clause 2 and not under Clause 1—and the second is the extension to the Corporation and its officers and staff of certain immunities and privileges, which comes under Clause 3. I cannot see that any of the considerations adduced by the hon. Gentleman are relevant to Clause 1.
Mr. Hale: The hon. Member has stopped at the vital words which say that we must accept the Agreement without reservation.
Sir E. Boyle: Clause 1 is purely a machinery Clause, a defining Clause. Two things are required of the Government for which this Bill is necessary. The first demand is for the payment of a subscription—and that is done under Clause 2 —and the second demand is the
"extension to the Corporation and its officers and staff"
of certain immunities and privileges under Clause 3. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Clause 1 is purely a definition Clause, and nothing else.
Mr. Warbey: Hon. Members are concerned with the preservation of their rights in the discussion of matters which come properly within their province. We are concerned with the question of the payment of £5 million from public funds, and surely, therefore, we are concerned about the manner in which that money is to be used and for the purpose to which it is to be applied. It is all very well for the Government to say that this is a purely machinery Clause——
The Chairman: Not only do the Government say so, but I said it first, and I stand by that.
Mr. Warbey: I accept your Ruling, Sir Charles, that Clause 1 is put in as a defining Clause. Included in this definition is a reference to the Articles, that is to say, the Articles of the International Finance Corporation and the "explanatory Memorandum as aforesaid" which were laid before Parliament, by Command of Her Majesty, on 16th June, 1955.

1437
10.0 p.m.
I would call the attention of the Committee to this date. The Articles were laid only on 16th June of this year. Under the Ponsonby Rule governing the ratification or adoption by the Government of international agreements, a rule which the Government have said they accept and are applying, any international treaty or document having the character of a treaty is required to lay on the Table of the House for a period of 40 days during which time the House can demand a debate on the subject matter of that agreement. That 40 days have not yet expired.
The Chairman: That does not arise on Clause 1.
Mr. Warbey: With very great respect, Sir Charles, it is referred to in Clause 1, and I was trying to make the point that what the Government have done, owing to the way in which they have drafted Clause 1, is that they have, as it were, by-passed the kind of discussion which the House should have had—not merely the Committee of the House—on the Articles of Agreement of the International Finance Corporation. Surely, we are entitled to comment on the Government's drafting of the Clause.
We had assumed that by presenting a Bill dealing with the matter the Government were providing us with an opportunity of discussing the Articles of Agreement, but we now find that they have done nothing of the sort. They have presented this Bill in such a form that we are precluded from discussing the substance of the Articles. I think that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury must admit that.
We are now faced, from the Parliamentary point of view, with the extraordinary situation that we are called upon to pass a Bill not only through its Second Reading stage, but through its Committee stage, and, possibly, its Report and Third Reading stages, before the period of 40 days has elapsed during which we could have a debate on the Articles of Agreement. It seems to me that the Government are anticipating the desire of the House in the matter. Since we are in Committee, I think that we are at the point when we really ought to call upon the Government to move to report Progress so that they can look at the Bill again.
1438
The Government have got themselves and the Committee into a muddle and into the position in which the Committee is being asked to prejudge an issue which ought to be decided by the House. The whole House has the right to discuss the Articles of Agreement of the International Finance Corporation, which document has been laid upon the Table of the House. Yet the Economic Secretary asks the Committee to pass the Clauses of a Bill which will prejudge, and, in fact, render impossible, the discussion which this House is entitled to have.
This is the time when I think that the Economic Secretary might say something instead of merely telling us that on Report he proposes to introduce a drafting Amendment to the Bill, because that is quite inadequate. We want the Government to take the Bill back, to redraft it and to present it in a form which will enable us to do the job which we ought to do, namely, to have a proper discussion upon the Articles of Agreement of the International Finance Corporation.
Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) has just said that the time has come for me to say something. I am bound to say that during the last half hour I have been waiting to say something because I wanted to give the House an exposition of Clause 1.
There is really nothing about the Ponsonby Rule in Clause 1, even if it were relevant to this Agreement, which it is not. The position is that there are certain Articles of Agreement in existence, those which have already been laid before the House and which we laid as soon as we possibly could in June last. These Articles are not by themselves an agreement, but they will become an agreement if and when they have been signed by the necessary number of parties. I tried to explain to the House in my Second Reading speech just what were the mechanics of bringing the Corporation into being. I said:
"The Articles of Agreement will come into effect when they have been accepted by at least thirty Governments, subscribing in total not less than 75 per cent. of its capital, but in any event not earlier than 1st October of this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 694.]
There is no question of these Articles of Agreement being signed with modifications. If they were to be modified, this Bill would not apply. But once the

1439
Agreement has come into force, then, under Article VII, there is machinery at a later date for modification. If hon. Members will turn to page 13 of the White Paper, they will see there the provisions relating to Amendments.
I am sorry that the phrase "any agreement" caused a certain difficulty, and I apologise if any words of mine earlier on added to that difficulty. I apologise wholeheartedly for any way in which I may have unintentionally misled the Committee.
Mr. Hale: I should like to apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because he did say that he was going to explain the position. I thought that his intervention was his explanation, and I apologise for intervening myself before he made his statement.
Sir E. Boyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. With regard to the phrase
"any agreement…which may be signed … in pursuance of Articles"
as I said during an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Ashfield, the word "any" relates to the contingency—which we must keep in mind for the purpose of the Bill—that there may be no Agreement; and not to the possibility that there might be different Agreements arising out of the same Article.
I should like to round off this question of definition, because I may have been responsible for misleading the Committee earlier. Clause 2 is quite accurate in referring to "the Agreement." This means the Agreement when it has come into being, and since there can be only one Agreement—that is to say, the Agreement as defined in Clause 1—it is fair enough to refer to particular Articles in terms of "the Agreement." I hope that I have made the definition of the Clause clear to the House. It is purely a definition Clause, and, having given that explanation, I hope that the Committee may now be able to pass to Clauses 2 and 3, which deal with other points.
Mr. Warbey: Before the Economic Secretary leaves this matter, I should like to take up one point. He said that the accession by the Government to the Agreement does not come under the Ponsonby Rules. I do not follow that, because Article IX, Section 2 (a) says
1440
"Each government on whose behalf this Agreement is signed shall deposit with the Bank an instrument setting forth that it has accepted this Agreement without reservation in accordance with its law.…"
Surely that Instrument is equivalent to the ratification of a treaty and, therefore, what we are dealing with is what all international documents are until they are ratified by the Governments concerned, namely, draft agreements.
We have the draft Agreement laid on the Table, and the Government will ratify it by depositing its instrument of accession to the Agreement. It therefore appears that the matter does come within the Ponsonby Rules, and the House is still entitled to discuss it before 40 days have elapsed.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North): We have no wish to spend the rest of the day discussing what appear to be verbal matters and questions of definition. We are anxious to raise substantial matters, affecting this Agreement and the whole vital question of investment in the undeveloped areas. It is not our fault, or perhaps anybody's fault, that we have been sidetracked into these apparently verbal questions. We ought now to see exactly where we stand.
The Economic Secretary has now admitted that there is not in existence at this moment any Agreement whatever. All that is in existence and that is before us is Articles of Agreement, which have been laid before the House and the Committee in the White Paper. In that case, speaking as a layman and not as a Parliamentary draftsman, it appears to me that there are grave errors of drafting in the Clause, in which we have constant references not to the Articles of Agreement but to "the Agreement." It is confusing to consider a Clause referring to an agreement when we have established that no Agreement is in existence.
I do not know whether the Government, having badly misdrafted the Bill, and earlier in the day having attempted to force through the Report stage of a Bill and having had to withdraw it, would

1441
now prefer to withdraw either this Clause or the Bill altogether and to continue the discussions another time. We may be forced to move that this Bill be treated in that way if we find that we are unable to discuss seriously an ill-drafted and confusing Bill. Until that happens, I want to put forward some suggestions.
Now that we are on Clause 2, we are certainly not on a question of definition but mainly on a matter of substance. The Clause says:
"There shall he paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom all sums required for the purpose of making payments on behalf of Her Majesty's said Government under paragraph (a) of section 3 of Article II of the Agreement."
We have now established that it is not an Agreement. It is "Articles of Agreement"; but leaving that point aside, I take it that we may discuss, since we are asked to issue these moneys out of the Consolidated Fund, the merits of these Articles of Agreement which we have before us in the White Paper. So far, I hope that the matter is clear. I want to direct attention only to one particular point.
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): There is only one Article referred to in the Clause. It is Section 3 of Article II, and not the articles in general.
Mr. Jay: It is at least clear that the Clause refers to Section 3 of Article II of the Agreement. On the other hand, is it not the case that these moneys are issued for the purpose of the operation of the whole of this Agreement? They are issued admittedly under this particular section of the Agreement. Surely it must be possible at this stage—and if it is not it is not possible at any stage—to consider the merits of the proposal under which this money is to be issued.
The Deputy-Chairman: That is a matter for Second Reading debate. We cannot do that at this stage. On the Second Reading that could have been done.
Mr. Jay: I wish to direct attention to the conditions in Section 3 of Article III of the Agreement, which refers to the point which was discussed on Second Reading and about which the Economic Secretary has since written to me, the power of this Corporation to sell its
1442
investments in order to revolve its funds after the enterprise has got into operation.
The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a matter which arises under the Clause which refers to Section 3 of Article II. There is nothing in the Clause about Article III.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Jay: In that case, I think that my hon. Friends would feel inclined to ask you to accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. Perhaps I might advance my reasons for that. We seem to have reached a point at which we are discussing a Bill which has been so ill-drafted that I cannot believe it could have any legal force even were the Committee to approve it. It refers to an agreement which does not exist. It fails to differentiate between an agreement which does not exist and an agreement which might exist. It does not refer to Articles of Agreement which do exist and which were signed on 11th April and are now before us.
It all rather suggests that we are now in a position in which we are not able to discuss any of the merits of a Measure by which the Committee is being asked to approve the expenditure of £5 million of public money. In the interests of discussion both of the control of these moneys and of the whole merits of the scheme we have before us—which deals, after all, with how these moneys should be invested in these undeveloped areas —it would really be better to put before us a proper Bill which is comprehensively and correctly drafted, to which we could direct our attention, and which would seem to have some hope of a reasonable——
The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry, but I could not accept such a Motion. These are all matters which should have been raised on Second Reading.
Mr. Hale: On a point of order. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill refers to the Section and explains it. I am referring to paragraph 2, which reads:
"Of these obligations two require legislative authority, namely the payment of a subscription of $14·4 million … and the extension to the Corporation …"
That is what the Clause provides—that we are to pay 14·4 million dollars. May

1443
I very respectfully remind the Chair that dollars are not part of the normal currency of this country, nor normally part of the currency of any of Her Majesty's Colonial Territories. Surely we are entitled to discuss whether we should pay——
The Deputy-Chairman: That, I think, comes under Section 3 of Article II, which is in order.
Mr. Hale: No, Sir Rhys. May I venture to say that it is possibly the paragraph which has misled. The actual payment which we are now discussing is in Section 2.
The Deputy-Chairman: The Agreement is in order—Section 3 of Article II of the Agreement.
Mr. Warbey: With great respect to your Ruling on my hon. Friend's proposed Motion, Sir Rhys, may I suggest that what we are concerned about in putting it forward——
The Deputy-Chairman: That, I am afraid, cannot be argued. I have given my decision.
Mr. Jay: Well, Sir Rhys, you have ruled that it is impossible to discuss anything of substance on this Clause. You have also ruled that you will not accept a Motion to report Progress. That leaves the Committee in a position in which it is very difficult to carry on at all.
The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Hale: On that point, may I deal specifically with what we now have under discussion, which is Section 3 of Article II of the Agreement? That, I understand, we can now discuss because that involves us in a financial obligation of 14·4 million dollars. I shall restrict my remarks quite narrowly to whether we should be spending money in dollars, entering into an agreement in dollars, and whether it will be to the advantage of Her Majesty or of the territories for which Her Majesty has responsibility. Section 3 says:
"Each original member shall subscribe to the number of shares of stock set forth opposite its name in Schedule A."
I take it that that brings in, by incorporation, Schedule A which, of course,
1444
provides for the relevant amount of subscriptions, the number of shares to be allocated to each member country, and the amount in United States dollars. It would be impossible to discuss it in vacuo, and that is clearly part of Section 3 of Article II, which states:
"The number of shares of stock to be subscribed by other members shall be determined by the Corporation.
(b) Shares of stock initially subscribed by original members shall be issued at par.
(c) The initial subscription of each original member shall be payable in full within 30 days after either the date on which the Corporation shall begin operations pursuant to Article IX, Section 3 (b), or the date on which such original member becomes a member, whichever shall be later, or at such date thereafter as the Corporation shall determine. Payment shall be made in gold or United States dollars in response to a call by the Corporation which shall specify the place or places of payment.
(d) The price and other terms of subscription of shares of stock to be subscribed, otherwise than on initial subscription by original members, shall be determined by the Corporation."
Those are the provisions of the limited Article to which reference is made in the Bill, which I understand under your Ruling, Sir Rhys, we are entitled to discuss. That raises a point which is exercising my mind and which is a very remarkable proposition, that we should agree to pay in dollars. We are paying 14·4 million dollars as a contribution to this Fund. It is unfortunate that the discussion is limited, because in a limited discussion one is unable to balance the arguments for and against a proposition and we are anxious to elicit some information.
The question of dollars arises in this way. We have been face to face with very great financial difficulties over a large number of years purely by the absence of dollars. As I said on Second Reading, this is an extraordinary provision under which we are to pay this money for the United Kingdom and the whole of Her Majesty's dependent territories. The position as explained by the Economic Secretary on Second Reading makes this quite clear. I do not think he will dispute at all that if any of Her Majesty's Colonial Territories have any private enterprise for which they require grants from this Fund, if the Bill goes through and the Corporation is established, that can only be done with the

1445
consent and on the guarantee of the United Kingdom. So, although the 14·4 million dollars ostensibly covers the United Kingdom, one has in mind mostly the consideration of dependent territories.
This is a very real problem, because if our dependent territories have to repay loans in dollars and spend money in dollars the whole of that trade is in terms of money which has to be spent in Washington. The Clause as drafted provides for the establishment of the Corporation, and the Corporation is a branch of the International Bank whose headquarters are in Washington. I do not propose to discuss the rest of the Agreement, but I must point out that it is on the same location and the narrow compass in which we are talking is of the payment from London to Washington for the purpose of establishing this financial Corporation.
If we take this little problem as a microcosm of the great problem which confronts the world, there are overwhelming reasons why we should consider it before we go further and say to Her Majesty's Government, in considering Clause 2 of the Bill, that they should look a little further and think a little before accepting this in toto and accepting the obligation without qualification, as it would appear by Article 9 they have undertaken to accept it.
I said that I would quote one dependent territory as an example of how the moneys are to be spent. It is a fair quotation, because it is the only one in which we have legislative responsibility in respect of which loans have been made by the International Bank. On the notes I have, the United States Economic Co-operation Administration approved a loan of £5 million in Rhodesia to be repaid in cobalt, copper, tungsten and chrome. There is a further loan of £3 million announced a month later also from the Administration. This was made to the Chibiluma Mines, and the loan was to be repaid in copper and cobalt. Then we come to the really relevant transaction: the two loans made by the International Bank had to be made in the specific limitations of the Bank because until this Bill is passed that organisation cannot lend to private enterprise. It lent 28 million dollars for the expansion of electric power production at an interest of 4¾ per cent. and commission repayable
1446
in 25 years and 14 million dollars in March for building a new railway from Rhodesia to Mozambique. Later it was stated that the United States Foreign Operations Administration had agreed to make a loan of 10 million dollars for the purchase of rolling stock.
When we consider the effects of the loan, we find that we are in a position in which the Rhodesias are already committed to the payment of about 10 million dollars a year to the various American controlling agencies, including the International Bank, out of their revenue. That will add even more to the unbalance of trade.
If we take these things in bulk and examine the results of what is taking place, it gives us pause. The United States announcement of their dollar investments abroad, issued on 25th December, 1952, showing the position at the end of 1950, gave a grand total of 11,800 million dollars. That was the total of United States foreign investments, interest on which had to be paid in dollars. Of that, 3,564 million dollars was in Canada. The United Kingdom had 840 million dollars. Those are the last full figures published by the authorities, but further figures two years later showed that they had increased to 14,000 million dollars. Those are direct investments abroad, which of course is a matter of the gravest concern to us. If hon. Members will not accept these figures of direct investment, the corresponding figure as supplied to me by the research department shows United States investments abroad at the end of 1953 as 39,454 million dollars.
That is why I venture to say that any further agreement by Her Majesty's Government to arrange for the financing of colonial development in terms of dollars is of very grave consideration to the House. We are reaching a position in which the United States, possibly for the very best of motives—and I make no imputation—is becoming the mortgagee of the whole civilised world. The situation is very grave.
I say no more than this in conclusion: I personally have always believed in the British Commonwealth of Nations. I have always believed that our duty, instead of entering into agreements of this kind, is to use our utmost resources to develop the British Commonwealth of

1447
Nations. I was one of those in 1945 who suggested a consultative Commonwealth Parliament. I agree with the noble Lord the proprietor of a very well-known newspaper who advocates this. Indeed, I can understand the crusader being in chains, and if the noble Lord looks at the figure of United States investment in Canadian oil he will find that he will soon be unable to oil the chains locally, unless steps are taken.
I urge the Committee to consider the whole question of investments. It affects the cotton workers in Oldham, and it affects the whole question of our having a viable productive area in the sterling area. This is too big a question to be dismissed lightly and that is why I wanted briefly to indicate the points which I had in mind without elaborating them in detail.
Sir E. Boyle: I cannot add much to what I said on Second Reading, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will recall that I said specifically on Second Reading that we in the United Kingdom would have liked the Corporation not to operate only in terms of dollars. I said that that was one of the least satisfactory aspects of the Articles of the Agreement.
Dealing with the last point which the hon. Member made, I should like to quote from what I said on Second Reading:
"I am glad to be able to tell the House that there is still a possibility of the Corporation operating in sterling in those parts of the world where sterling is the traditional currency and in due course we intend to seek to negotiate arrangements to this end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July 1955; Vol. 543, c. 692.]
When I was replying, by leave of the House, at the end of the debate on Friday, I pointed out that dollars provided by the Bank were not tied to expenditure in the United States. Dollar loans from the Bank have financed purchases from many countries and substantial sums in the dollars provided in those countries have been earned by our exporters. I attempted to meet the points which the hon. Member made.
I think the hon. Member has misunderstood the position about guarantees. One of the main differences between the Bank
1448
and the Corporation is precisely that the Bank must secure the guarantee of a member country for any loan made to a borrower not itself a member Government, whereas the Corporation will not seek Government guarantees in these circumstances.
Mr. Hale: The Corporation did so in Rhodesia.
Sir E. Boyle: I am talking about the new Corporation. This is one of the main differences, as I explained on Friday, between the International Bank and the new Corporation.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Jay: Before we part with the Clause can we be told by the Economic Secretary whether the Government are proposing to amend in Committee or on Report subsection (1), which refers to Article II of the Agreement? The Economic Secretary has already agreed that there is no Agreement in existence, and that, therefore, this wording is incorrect. If it is not incorrect, it is meaningless. Surely the Committee must not accept the Clause with that phrase in it, which, in the circumstances, has no significance whatever. What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do about it?
Sir E. Boyle: When I spoke on the Question, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill" I devoted two or three minutes to explaining that this Clause was accurate in referring, as it does, to the Agreement, and I cannot add any more now to what I said then.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(FAIR CONDITIONS.)
In considering whether to object, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2) of section three of Article III of the Agreement, to the financing of any enterprise within the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government shall have regard to all such considerations as to the nationality and situation of the registered office of the enterprise, fair wages clauses, employment of trade union labour and all other such conditions which are normally considered in relation to the selection and placing of Government contracts.—[Mr. Hale.]
Brought up and read the First time.
Mr. Hale: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be convenient to consider, at the same time, the next new Clause [Fair conditions in Colonies], also in the name of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hale: No, Sir Rhys. I welcome the opportunity of discussing them together. [Laughter.] I must have lost my sense of humour. I do not know what hon. Members are laughing at.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): I was wondering whether the hon. Member was welcoming the opportunity of discussing the new Clauses or the opportunity of discussing them together.
Mr. Hale: I welcome the opportunity of discussing them together. One raises a set of principles for the Government at home and the other a set of principles for the Government in the Colonies. They raise precisely the same issue, though, of course, obviously, the second is the more important, because one does not anticipate the possibility of unfair conditions in the United Kingdom today.
The first suggests that the Government shall
"…have regard to … nationality and situation … of the enterprise,… fair wages clauses, employment of trade union labour and all other such conditions which are normally considered in relation to the selection and placing of Government contracts."
The only reason for that is this. If the Government are asked by the International Finance Corporation to agree to an enterprise directed to the development of private enterprise in the United Kingdom they ought to have regard to those matters—and to the nationalised industries, which constitute a main consideration to take into account.
I am not suggesting for a moment that anyone wants a closed shop here and would not welcome guests appearing as suitable enterprises. Of course, one must consider that. To take, for example, a fantastic suggestion, suppose there were a proposal to develop an arms company with German control. At this moment I would suggest that that would be a matter the Government might properly consider. Personally, I could wish that
1450
had been considered earlier, but I must not develop that matter now. Of course, the employment of trade union labour and other such conditions would be considered. All we say is that if private enterprise is to be financed with what are, in effect, Government guarantees, assurances of Government support, we are entitled, in these days, to demand fair conditions.
In the other new Clause concerning the Colonies we insist, and rightly, that the Government must be satisfied that
"… the enterprise is one which is in the general interest of the people of such territory and that suitable and satisfactory undertakings have been given by the enterprise concerned as to the payment of fair wages, the recognition of trade unions and the absence of colour discrimination amongst the employees of the enterprise."
I often think that in colonial matters the United States have done very much better than we have—certainly in relation to the colour bar. The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court is an illustration of the humanity of the tremendously rapid progress the Americans have made since the days of Tennessee twenty years ago to the days of Tennessee today. But this is an international concern with international directors and varying points of view.
It seems to me that here is a simple opportunity for Her Majesty's advisers to say, "We are going to take a few steps to implement the Declaration of Human Rights in this matter." Here is an opportunity for them to say that if international finance is going to enter into our territories—and on suitable terms I should welcome it—we must have regard to one or two considerations. They are put in the proposed new Clause.
The first consideration is the interests of the inhabitants. Presumably, as far as a large part of Africa is concerned, the new Clause is completely in accord with the terms of the Devonshire Declaration, which has long been Government policy, and also with the interests of the inhabitants. It must be said that the bringing of large-scale industry or large-scale agriculture into a territory is by no means an unmixed blessing. Everyone knows that the construction of railways, which Africa so badly needs, is never by itself an unmixed blessing. Anyone who knows the history of the development of this

1451
country, or worse, the United States, or, worse still, Australia, will know that, unless there is considerable control, widespread evils may result.
The bringing to remote, poverty-stricken, depressed areas of large-scale industries—while it is one of the things which we want to welcome—by itself, without other balancing factors, can be a great evil indeed. One has to have regard to the effects of rapid inflation on a territory which is without consumer goods, to the destruction of the old agricultural life and, pre-eminently, to the effects which these enterprises, by their very nature, often have on the movements of population. Mining companies have to go where the mine is and where, very often, the people are not. Men have to travel vast distances from home and work and live in dormitory conditions away from their wives and families. In such cases, welfare considerations arise of the kind which a welfare officer with wide international experience might have in mind. A very great disaster can be created if these considerations are not borne in mind.
The interests of other inhabitants must also be considered over a wide area. We have in Africa, and, unfortunately, in too many countries which are regarded as individual, nationalistic units, vast areas which are not viable and which, for instance, have no access to the coast, except through other territories. Transport must be provided in a manner which is acceptable to those other territories.
There is also the social implication, which is overwhelming—that if we are to introduce more white people into Africa—miners, technicians and directors of companies—we must consider the social effect on the Africans. Will they always be hewers of wood and drawers of water to be compelled permanently to work as labourers and have no opportunity of acquiring skills? Are we to continue to have the situation which exists in Africa today, partly of necessity and partly not, in which the lower-grade worker and manual labourer is always an African, and the higher grade is almost always European? Or are we going to provide some technical facilities in connection with these provisions?
These are the considerations which we, on this side of the Committee, had in
1452
mind when we drew up the new Clause. I do not suppose that anyone wants to be vicious about it. We understand the difficulties which are inherent in enforcing the amendment of an agreement or seeking to impose it upon a statute. I hope to hear from the Economic Secretary—from whom, from what I have heard of him, I would expect a high regard for those standards, and a genuine desire to serve the sort of interests I have been discussing—that he is able to carry some of his fellow Members with him on these matters; and that he will be able to give an assurance that these matters will be kept in mind in the future finance developments in the Colonial Territories.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Paragraph (II) of Section 3 of Article III states that if any member of the Corporation objects to the financing of a scheme, the Corporation shall not proceed. Advantage is taken of that paragraph by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to urge upon the Government that when money is used for financing enterprises, both in Great Britain and in the Colonies, it shall be used only when there are fair conditions for those employed.
I need not emphasise that those conditions exist in the United Kingdom, where we have our fair wages clauses and conditions which have to be fulfilled when Government contracts are accepted. But this Bill will be concerned mainly with the devoting of finance to the Colonial Territories, and in that respect there is an overwhelming case for urging on the Government that, by the acceptance of this new Clause, conditions will be laid down which will not allow finance to be used to the detriment of the people of any territory.
Four conditions are proposed in the second of the proposed Clauses. The first is that the enterprise shall be in the general interest of the people of the territory. I acknowledge that it is unlikely today that money will be used for enterprises which will not be for the benefit of the people, but that has not always been the case. One can remember the opium war, when opium was forced on people against their will. But the case for priorities will develop, and it may be that profits can more easily be made from an enterprise which is not regarded

1453
as of the first priority by the people of the territory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West has reminded the Committee of the Devonshire Declaration of 1923, and that we are pledged to conduct all our affairs in the Colonial Territories primarily in the interests of the indigenous peoples. If we are now to have the financing of enterprises in these territories, before endorsing a scheme, we should ask the representatives of those peoples whether it is the enterprise which they most desire and which is of the greatest benefit to their territory. I believe that if we begin to do that, we shall have some surprising results.
I recognise that the development of minerals, power stations, railways, are absolutely essential to the peoples of those territories; but I believe that if we asked them what were their first priorities they would say that they were enterprises very closely attached to their ordinary daily human needs. They would be what I have described as "hut-door needs." When people are hungry, when people are diseased, when people are ill-educated, they desire that finance which is to be put into their territory shall be doing first things first—and these are the first things.
10.45 p.m.
Therefore, I ask the Government, when they fulfil their duty under the Bill, to insist that in the Colonial Territories representatives of the colonial peoples themselves shall be asked whether they desire these enterprises and whether these enterprises are in the priority in which they desire.
The second point is the insistence upon the payment of fair wages in the Colonial Territories. In East, West and Central Africa, where undoubtedly a large part of this finance would be applied, the wages paid to the African population are just appalling. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and I went to Nairobi in 1952. I think we found the most dramatic illustration of conditions of life there in just one page of a Ministry of Labour report. That report analysed the income of the European, Asian and African community in Kenya.
The lowest grade wage among Europeans was under £600 a year. We
1454
found that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 Europeans receiving less than that figure in Kenya. The lowest grade among Asians was under £180 a year. We found there were between 3,000 and 4,000 Asians receiving less than that in Kenya. The lowest grade among Africans was under £24 a year, and we found there were over 46,000 African workers receiving less than that in Kenya.
I want to be fair. The Ministry of Labour figures themselves did not indicate that sometimes those wretched African wages were increased by rations and free housing accommodation. I think it very likely that they were. But even so, this Government ought not to be financing enterprises in Kenya, or any other territory, where the conditions of the workers are such that they are kept in a condition of continual destitution and hunger.
The third point is recognition of trade unions. This is held to be common policy on both sides of this House. I would merely say that one has only to visit a Colony to find that it is by no means an accepted policy by the European community. [Interruption.] I did not catch the intervention of the hon. Gentleman. I am sure it was a useful one.
Mr. Beresford Craddock: It is not entirely accepted by the African either.
Mr. Brockway: I would only say—again, I give the illustration of Kenya—that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and I were probably most horrified by the fact that in Kenya we could not find a representative of the European community on the unofficial side of the Legislature who was in favour of the development of trade unions among the African population.
In an early effort to find a common programme for the removal of the injustices which have been partly responsible for the violence of Mau Mau, we met in 1952, at a round-table conference, representatives of all the unofficial groups in the Legislature. The European group would not consider the retention in the document which was laid before the conference of the proposal for the extension of trade unions to the African community.

1455
Again, I say that the Government ought to object to the expenditure of any finance under this system in any economic enterprise which will not recognise the right of the people, and particularly the indigenous people, to organise in their trade unions.
The last point under the Clause is to insist that there must be an absence of colour discrimination. I could illustrate that from many Colonial Territories. I will try to illustrate it in perhaps its most constructive aspect by the circumstances in Northern Rhodesia. For months now there have been negotiations in the copper industry to try to open up to the African workers the opportunity of entering trades and crafts. There have been negotiations with a view to lifting the standard of wages. I pay my tribute to the Miners' Federation of this country and to the Miners' International for their services in this respect.
Mr. James Johnson: And to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams).
Mr. Brockway: My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and I often think in like terms. I was particularly going to add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) for the service which he has rendered in this respect.
The negotiations have reached a point where the employers in large numbers, and the African workers in their trade unions in large numbers, are in agreement. By whom is agreement held up? I have almost a sense of shame when I say that it is being held up by the European trade unions.
If the Bill can be used to say that no finance under it will be invested in any industry in Africa which practises racial discrimination, which recognises the colour bar, and which does not agree that every worker shall be paid the rate for the job whatever his colour is and that every worker shall be allowed the opportunity to develop and enter trades and skilled crafts, then the Government ought to object to the use of finance in such industries and should use the power given by paragraph II of Section 3 of Article III of the Agreement. The Economic Secretary nods his acquiescence of my general argument. I very much hope that he
1456
will not only gesture his consent, but that he will accept these two Clauses, so that these conditions may be provided.
Mr. James Johnson: I want, for a few minutes, to follow the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) on the trade unions, because I think that the part that can be played by the trade unions is one of the most important contributions that can be made by them in helping with the work on the African side of the co-operatives.
I could not echo too much what has been said. I intervene merely to ask the Economic Secretary whether he will convey my few sentences to the Colonial Secretary, because this must be said. Under this Government one is moving into an old-fashioned economy of laissez-faire—I would not say back to Adam Smith, but almost back to Gladstone—and the Royal Commission on East Africa has taken its cue from this Government as a whole. That Commission is almost against any form of State marketing, State powers and public enterprise, and is particularly reactionary in the context of this Bill in the matter of trade unions, because it sets its face against trade unions, and is talking in terms of workers' councils.
If any of this money is invested in East Africa, where we have this tendency, I would absolutely oppose it. It is a thoroughly bad thing, in these days, to think of workers' councils in the Colonies. One needs to have virile, outspoken, articulate ventilation of the Africans' point of view, and not couched in "if-you-please" and cap-touching terms to the owners of industries in Africa—or in Malaya.
I am shocked to discover that in Nigeria, for example, the trade unions are not consulted about anything, even the cost-of-living index, and that they are even denied the right of assembly. The trade unions in Nigeria have to ask police permission before they can have a meeting. If the secretary of the Nigerian Trade Union Federation goes to Kaduna he needs to have a police permit before he can assemble his trades council. I hope that any firms which go to Africa will inherit trade union democracy and will set their faces against the tendencies which are now beginning to be brought

1457
into the Colonies. I hope that the Minister will convey my comments on the African scene to the Colonial Secretary.
Mr. Douglas Jay: I want to add my appeal to the Economic Secretary, in no controversial spirit, to accept these Clauses or, at any rate, to add something to the Bill which has substantially the same effect. We are now on matters of substance and are, I hope, harmoniously in order.
I do not think it will be disputed that it is possible for the Government to write into this Bill some safeguards of this kind, without cutting across the Agreement which they have entered or are entering into. Paragraph II of Section 3 of the Articles of Agreement says that the Corporation shall not finance an enterprise in the territories of any member if the member objects to such financing. That means that the British Government have the right to object to any individual project going forward in a British Colony.
11.0 p.m.
Therefore, the British Parliament has the power to say on what conditions the British Government should or should not object to such a project. I would remind the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that there is a very excellent precedent for this method of proceeding in the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940. In that Act, 15 years ago, Parliament wrote in specific safeguards which the Government had to observe in encouraging enterprises in British colonies. I will quote a few words from that Act which might help the Economic Secretary. It said in Section 1, subsection (2):
"Before making any scheme under this section as respects any colony, the Secretary of State—

(a) shall satisfy himself, in a case where the scheme provides for the payment for the whole or part of the cost of any works, that the law of the colony provides reasonable facilities for the establishment and activities of trade unions and that fair conditions of labour will be observed in the execution of the works and in particular—

(i) that the wages paid will be at not less than the rates recognised by employers and trade unions in the area where the works are to be executed or, if there are no rates so recognised, at rates approved by the person for the time being administering the government of the colony; and

1458

(ii) that no children under such ages as may be appropriate in the circumstances, but not in any case being less than fourteen years, will be employed on the works; and

(b) shall take into account the desirability of securing so far as possible that the colony shall participate in any increase in values directly attributable to the scheme."

As long ago as 1940 Parliament saw fit to put those fairly precise conditions into the Act and they have been preserved in substance ever since. I cannot believe that the Economic Secretary or anybody in any part of the Committee would wish there to be lesser safeguards today, 15 years later in this new scheme. If I am right in supposing that it is in order that we should write them into this Bill, I hope that the Economic Secretary will be able to meet us on this important matter.
Sir E. Boyle: I can quite understand that the discussion during the last hour has been more to the taste of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) than some of the discussions we had before. I cannot advise the Committee to agree to these two new Clauses, for reasons I will explain; but I think that, in the course of my remarks, I shall be able to go some way towards satisfying the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) and other hon. Members who have spoken. Hon. Members will, I think, agree that the first of these two new Clauses is the less important.
It is quite likely, in fact I would say most probable, that the International Finance Corporation will never make an investment in the United Kingdom itself. Certainly such investments will be quite exceptional and, if the International Finance Corporation proposes to invest in the United Kingdom, the Government will take into account all the considerations referred to in the new Clause in considering whether or not to object in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 subsection (ii) of Article III. I think it is unnecessary to complicate this Bill by adding a new Clause on this narrow point which is quite unlikely ever to arise and on a matter which can be dealt with effectively by administrative action.
Let me turn to the second of the new Clauses, which one may call the colonial Clause. This is a much more

1459
important matter. The right hon. Member pointed out that there are provisions referring to trade unions contained in the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. It is only fair to remember that in the case of that Act we have nothing comparable with this subsection. We have here the initial safeguard of this very important and powerful subsection (ii), which says that the Corporation shall not finance an enterprise in the territories of any member if that member objects. As was admitted by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), there are difficulties about tacking a Clause of this kind on to a Bill of this sort. In any case, I would remind the Committee that all enterprises in the Colonial Territories are subject to the laws and regulations of the territory concerned, including those affecting labour. It seems at first sight to be a little difficult to impose special additional obligations simply on enterprises financed by the International Finance Corporation.
There are, however, certain other safeguards I would point out to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, whom we all respect for his sincerity and interest in these questions. The presence on the board of the Corporation of a director appointed by Her Majesty's Government will ensure that we are kept informed of all the prospective investments of the Corporation. We, in turn, will see to it, and I can give this undertaking without qualification, that full information on any proposed investment in any Colony is sent to the Government of the Colony concerned. If that Colonial Government is not satisfied as to the intentions of an enterprise, or feels that it would not be in the interest of the territory, or would be contrary to its general policy, it will be open to that Colonial Government to make its views known to Her Majesty's Government in this country. Her Majesty's Government would then exercise, in the interest of the Colonial Territory, the unqualified right of objection which we have in Article III.
Initial responsibility for considering whether an enterprise is open to objection must rest with the Colonial Government concerned rather than with the Colonial Secretary, but we shall keep in close touch on the matter. We shall see that the fullest information about
1460
proposed investments is sent to the Governments concerned, and if they have objections on the ground suggested by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, it will be open to those Governments to make those views known to the United Kingdom Government, which can then exercise its unqualified right to object, which is contained in Article III.
I suggest to the Committee that it is unnecessary to include in the Bill a Clause on this subject, but as a matter of administration we shall take into account the points which have been put forward.
Mr. Jay: Can the Economic Secretary say why it is less necessary now to write these safeguards into the Bill than it was when the Colonial Development and Welfare Act was passed in 1940? Could not the arguments he is using now have been used then?
Sir E. Boyle: I tried to point out that so far as the Act of 1940 was concerned there was nothing analogous to these Articles of Agreement, and nothing analogous to the powerful subsection (ii). which I have just read.
Mr. Jay: All that amounts to, surely, is that it enables the British Government to object to any individual scheme. In 1940 the Act laid the obligation upon the British Government to object in certain conditions. We suggest the same thing here, that the British Government should be required to exercise discretion in a way laid down by Parliament.
Sir E. Boyle: I tried to meet that point by saying that objection must first lie with the Colonial Government concerned.
Mr. Brockway: We appreciate that the Economic Secretary has made some offer to meet the point of view which has been expressed on this side of the Committee, but I am sorry that he has not been prepared to accept the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). Surely, if we could have the matter dealt with in the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, there is no reason why similar provision should not be made here. He has said that these enterprises will be reported to the Colonial Government concerned before they are endorsed. I recognise that it is not the fault of his Department,

1461
but many of these Colonial Governments are not representative Governments; some have no representatives of the indigenous peoples. Could the Economic Secretary therefore extend his offer to this point: that not only should the Colonial Governments be informed but that it should be the duty also to inform the Legislatures in those territories, because in nearly all those Legislatures there are representatives of the indigenous peoples?
Sir E. Boyle: I cannot tonight go further than I have gone already. I think the point which the hon. Member makes is more for a representative of the Colonial Office and I will see that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is informed.
I would point out that the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, did not enforce the recognition of trade unions. It provided only that the law of the Colony should give reasonable facilities for the establishment of trade unions. In other words, it did not go as far as the new Clause. I do not want to make too much of that, but I thought it fair to bring it to the notice of hon. Members, as reference has been made to the Act of 1940. Perhaps the hon. Member for Eton and Slough would take up the other point with the Colonial Office.
Mr. Warbey: It would be nice if we on this side of the Committee could accept the assurances given by the Economic Secretary because he made them in his usual gracious manner, but I do not think he has quite seized the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
The Government are saying "Trust the Government of the time. Trust the Colonial Secretary. Trust the Colonial Government." What the Labour Government did in the Colonial Development and Welfare Act was to allow Parliament to impose conditions upon the Minister and to lay them down precisely. It is not only a question of whether we in the Committee trust the Government. We are dealing with a matter which concerns perhaps 1,500 million people in the under-developed areas. They are watching everything we do pretty closely these days. When we talk about making provision for private investment in the
1462
under-developed areas, they wonder whether it will be the same old story of economic exploitation, and their attitude towards us is not encouraged by the Government's general policy, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) referred.
My hon. Friend spoke of the Report of the Royal Commission on East Africa, which is germane to the subject which we are discussing. The Government should have something to say about that Report. It cannot pass it over in silence, because the Report proposes the extension of market economies in Africa on the basis of private enterprise with private capital brought in from outside by people who are to settle in those areas and manage the enterprises themselves. That is the essence of it. That is opening the door to the old abuses, exploitations and political discriminations, which are causing a good deal of concern in some of our African territories. The people of Uganda and Kenya and of other East African territories are very anxious to know what the Government think of this Royal Commission Report and what——
The Chairman: I dare say they are, but we cannot deal with that under the Clause.
Mr. Warbey: They are anxious to know the conditions under which private enterprise is to be allowed to operate in the Colonial Territories for which the Government are responsible and of which the East African territories form a part. I do not want to enter into another long debate with the Economic Secretary, but he said he had studied both sides of the question of economic imperialism. I can recommend an additional document for his study to complete his view of the matter—the Report recently published by the United Nations on the scope and structure of money economies in tropical Africa. He will find some comments on the question of the continuing economic exploitation by private enterprise. He will see that in Northern Rhodesia, for example——
The Chairman: I have already asked the hon. Member to keep to the new Clause. This has nothing to do with it.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Warbey: But, Sir Charles, I do submit that this new Clause is concerned with ensuring that private enterprise, if

1463
established by the International Finance Corporation in the British Colonies, shall only be established, and allowed by the Government to be established, if in accordance with the general interests of the people of the territories concerned and in accordance with a policy of fair wages. I was going to show that from past experience, and very recent experience, mere assurances from the Government on this point are rather inadequate. I am surely entitled to do that.
We are asking for this new Clause to be put into the Bill, and we are saying that we are not satisfied with the Bill as it stands. Indeed, there are good reasons why we are not satisfied. One of the reasons we are not satisfied is that in fact under private enterprise there is a good deal of sheer exploitation still going on in the underdeveloped areas.
In the Report to which I have just referred—I see an hon. Member disagrees. I would just ask him to consider the fact as given in this United Nations Report, which states that in Northern Rhodesia about 60 per cent. of the total money income accrues in the form of corporate profits of the large mining companies. Nearly two-thirds of the total income in that territory are the profits of private companies. Is that exploitation, or is it not? And then we are told further that these profits are almost entirely accounted for by non-indigenous concerns. Moreover—and I am still referring to Northern Rhodesia —the income taken out of the country represents between 35 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the total money income of that territory.
In other words, these private companies are receiving in profits two-thirds of the total income and taking nearly two-thirds of these profits out of the country altogether. I say this is a form of scandalous, gross exploitation when you consider that alongside all that the average per capita income of the African population is about £10 per head per annum. One fact in the Royal Commission's Report on East Africa which sticks in my mind is that the wages of the unskilled African workers in Kenya are so low that their total wage could not pay for a daily bus fare for a four-mile journey to and from work.
Colonel Douglas Glover: The hon. Member said that the average wage in Northern Rhodesia was £10. Would he state what the average wage is in the copper industry in Northern Rhodesia compared with the rest of the country?
The Chairman: I do not think that should be pursued. That is quite beyond the scope of the Clause.
Mr. Warbey: I was referring to the African worker, and, after all, we are considering here the welfare of the indigenous population of the Colonial Territories. I want to make the point quite briefly.
It seems to me so obvious that this is the kind of situation which we ought to face, and, as we said on the Second Reading, show a conscience about. We ought not to try to excuse it or to pretend it does not exist. We ought to be doing something about it. We ought to be doing that something precisely and in our law, so that the 15 million people living on a standard which no one in this country can contemplate enduring may realise that in this country there is a conscience about it and that we intend to put the matter right.
Question, That the Clause be read a Second time, put and negatived.
Bill to be reported.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
11.21 p.m.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: The discussions we have had have shown that the very best contribution the Bill can make to meeting the needs of under-developed territories is bound to be very small. I think that in all parts of the House it is understood that at the very best the Bill provides only a small part of the provisions that have to be made. We all realise, too, that the major needs of the underdeveloped territories are for rapid expansion of public works, particularly construction works, that the Bill can do very little to promote. The contribution which can be made by private finance, assisted possibly by contributions from the International Finance Corporation, can come

1465
only after there has been vast expansion of public works and public services.
Therefore, it is only right that before parting with the Bill we should ask the Government what their attitude is to the other major contributions that have to be made to the development of underdeveloped countries. The International Bank, in considering the sphere of activity of the Corporation, has made it clear that, in its view, the part it can play can be fruitful only if there is at the same time development of what are briefly called the S.U.N.F.E.D. proposals. We are awaiting an expression of the Government's view upon them.
I want once more to express the view from these benches that, before we can finally approve the Bill, we must know whether it can be made effective by the other larger contributions we expect the Government to offer. We know the matter is under consideration at the moment. Therefore, it is only proper that we should know whether or not the Bill can work at all, even on a small scale, with the larger support for public works and services which the S.U.N.F.E.D. proposals can offer. I ask the Economic Secretary at least to say once more that the Government recognise that the Bill can work—if at all—only with the other help the Government must make.
11.24 p.m.
Mt. Hale: I feel we cannot allow the discussion, which has taken some time, to conclude without expressing, as I know I can for all on this side of the House, our appreciation of the way in which the Economic Secretary has handled the debate, the very courteous explanation he has given of a very complicated matter, and the way in which he has handled the Bill from the commencement of its passage.
Sir E. Boyle: I thank the hon. Member very much for those kind words. I only want to add that I do not think that on Third Reading it would be proper for me to launch on a discussion of S.U.N.F.E.D.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
11.26 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Robens: I do not want to detain the House at this late hour. We had an interesting debate on Second Reading, when most of the points that arose on the Bill were well covered and we had fairly satisfactory replies from the Government. I would merely ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what different treatment will be accorded to the two groups of staff mentioned in the Clause.
The indication is that staff with the office of the level of attaché upwards have some additional amenities or concessions which are not given to those who are below that rank. I raised the point on Second Reading but I do not think that we had a reply to it, because we were dealing with other matters.
In my own experience, and I am sure that the same conclusion has been drawn by other hon. Members who have travelled abroad, I have come to the conclusion that there is no real reason why any special privileges should attach to any particular group of people who are serving abroad, with the possible exception of the ambassador or chief representative himself. But very often junior staff and those on the lower scales of salary are in need of additional assistance because of the problems which arise in living abroad. Whilst, no doubt, the group arrangements in the Clause are similar to those which operate under other Bills which confer immunity, and with general practice in the diplomatic service, I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to explain what is meant by,
"… shall in addition be entitled to such other exemption or relief from taxes as is accorded to the members of the official staff of such an envoy holding equivalent rank."
Is it that staffs are divided into two groups, one enjoying greater privileges than the other? If so, what is the

1467
reason? At this stage, is this the right way to deal with the matter?
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) for his question. The answer is that those with the rank of attaché and above receive exemption from United Kingdom Income Tax on their official emoluments, on their income arising abroad, on their income arising from certain British Government securities, and on the annual value of premises owned and occupied by them as their official residence. For those who are in the clerical grade, there is the distinction that they receive only exemption from Income Tax in respect of their official emoluments. It is true of this grade that they receive a lower scale than is normally awarded; in normal diplomatic posts, clerical staffs are allowed exemption from Income Tax on income arising abroad.
11.30 p.m.
In the debate on 21st February, the right hon. Gentleman asked the Government what were the views of Sir Cecil Weir about what should be the minimum diplomatic immunities and privileges which should be conferred. We had already discussed this with Sir Cecil Weir, and this Bill comprises the privileges and immunities which he regarded as the minimum essential for carrying on the work. That is why there is this distinction.
Mr. Robens: I do not follow why there is the distinction. I understand that what has been done is to get diplomatic immunities at the lowest level consistent with the work to be done. But I do not understand why members of the British staff should be treated differently from one another.
Mr. Turton: We are not here dealing with the British staff but with a foreign delegation. Clearly, it is unnecessary to give clerical grades exemption from the annual value of the premises owned and occupied by them as their official residences, because they do not have official residences. I think that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that we should not follow the advice of Sir Cecil Weir, but give greater exemptions from tax, which is not a policy which I could recommend to the Committee.
1468
We believe it necessary to curtail these immunities and privileges so far as possible. Some of the clerical staff will be coming to and fro, and so Sir Cecil Weir did not think that we should give them a large exemption.
Mr. Robens: When I referred to the British staff, I had in mind the fact that this was a reciprocal arrangement. Whatever we do for those coming from Luxembourg will be done for our people who go to Luxembourg. I accept the view of Sir Cecil Weir about what is the lowest amount, and I am sure that he has given the best advice to the Government. But I cannot accept the premise that junior members of the staff should have anything less than is accorded elsewhere. If it is not necessary for the junior members of the staff to have this exemption, why should it be necessary for the senior members to have it? In the matter of tax exemptions I should have thought that we would have treated the whole delegation alike, either one way or the other.
I accept the advice of Sir Cecil Weir and of the Government, but I do not like this distinction. Any hon. Member who has visited our embassies abroad will know how difficult it is, very often, for junior members of the staff to manage in a foreign country. I am not saying that there should be an exemption or that there should not. I think it strange that there should be a division in the staff of any delegation; that some members should be told that because they hold a rank less than that of an attaché they may not have a tax exemption, and others that, because they hold the rank of attaché or above they may have the exemption. The cost of living abroad is identical for all the members of the delegation according to their means, and I do not understand the reason for the difference among people who are all working for a common end.
Mr. Turton: I do not want to prolong this argument. We must remember that the division of the grades is between those in a purely representative capacity and those in a clerical capacity. In our view, it is the minimum necessary. It is true that we can be more generous, but I do not think the House would like us to be more generous. Therefore, I

1469
ask the Committee to accept the Clause as it is.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION
Draft Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) Amendment Regulations, 1955, made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1953, [copy laid before this House on 15th June] approved.—[Mr. Deedes.]
Draft Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations, 1955, [copy laid before this House on 29th June] approved.—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
So much of the Lords Message [6th July] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on the Police (Scotland) Bill [Lords] to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
Select Committee of five Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the Police (Scotland) Bill [Lords]:
Colonel Gomme-Duncan, Mr. John Hay, Mr. Lawson, Mr. William Ross, and Mr. Spence:
Power to send for persons, papers and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:
Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
Select Committee appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are wholly appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer, and to obtain further information as to so much of the current policy and practices of those industries as are not matters which—

(a) have been decided by or clearly engage the responsibility of any Ministers;

(b) concern wages and conditions of employment and other questions normally decided by collective bargaining arrangements;

(c) fall to be considered through formal machinery established by the relevant Statutes, or

(d) are matters of day-to-day administration:

Mr. Albu, Mr. Blyton, Mr. Ernest Davies, Viscount Hinchingbrooke, Sir Ian Horobin, Mr. J. H. R. Hutchison, Colonel Lancaster, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Renton, Sir Patrick Spens, Mr. G. R. Strauss, Mr. Wade, and Dame Irene Ward:
Five to be the Quorum:
Power to send for persons, papers and records:
Power to report from time to time.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

SEWERAGE SCHEME, NORLAND TOWN
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
11.38 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am glad of the opportunity of raising tonight a matter which concerns some of my constituents. The question I have to raise arises from the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts of from 1944 to 1955. It concerns the inhabitants of part of my constituency known as Norland Town, which although called a town is actually a village, and a scattered one at that.
The Sowerby Bridge Urban District Council, the local authority concerned, proposes a drainage or sewerage scheme for Norland Town, and the question arises whether the local authority shall be given some contribution towards the cost of this scheme under the provisions of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts of from 1944 to 1955.
I suppose the first question to consider is whether the scheme is necessary at all. I do not think it would be needful for me to argue that at any length. A brief description of the conditions it is proposed to remedy would not be amiss, however. There are 110 houses concerned in the proposed scheme. Only two are on what is called the water-carriage system. Sixty-four houses have pail-closets, including the school, where the children are using old-fashioned-type tub closets, and where the medical officer of health says there is a distinct risk of a spreading of excremental disease.
The remaining houses are connected to existing sewers which discharge into cesspools. In these, gravitation, aided by waste sink water, carries the sewage into the cesspools, and the cesspools for the most part are put on agricultural land on the slope of the hillside towards the town of Sowerby Bridge. The cesspools are in a constant condition of overflow, and they foul the private water supplies on the hillside which are used by householders lower down and nearer the town itself.
It is a remarkable thing that these cesspools are apparently on a lease from
1472
the owners of the land which may be terminated at three months' notice. One is horrified to think what might happen if those concerned chose to give notice to the local authority to remove the cesspools from their land. The cesspools are certainly a nuisance, and those concerned in agriculture complain. There are other undesirable features about them which are a constant source of difficulty and objection.
I will sum this up by saying that the medical officer of health, the West Riding County Council, and the Ministry, all realise that the scheme is necessary.
The next question is, who is to pay? Does the scheme qualify for a grant? Section 1 (1, b) of the 1944 Act lays it down as a condition of a contribution that the expenditure shall be incurred in making adequate provision for sewerage or the disposal of sewage by a rural locality. The question is, therefore, whether Norland Town, despite its name, is a rural locality.
Norland Town was previously part of the Halifax rural district, and it is now part of the Sowerby Bridge Urban District. It is a fact, however, that it is not necessary for the local authority concerned to be a rural district council for it to be able to qualify for a grant towards expenditure of this kind in a rural locality because Section 1 (6) of the 1944 Act says that a local authority, for the purpose of the Section, shall be the council of any borough, urban or rural district, and the Parliamentary Secretary said in a speech on the Second Reading of the 1955 Measure on 22nd February, as will be seen in c. 1221 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that in a small number of cases contributions had been made to urban areas. I think that he said that consideration had to be given to each case on its merits.
In Norland Town, which I would emphasise is a village, and a very scattered one at that, there is not a single factory or industrial building of any kind. It is on the edge of the moors, 500 ft. above Sowerby Bridge and 750 ft. above sea level; it is a kind of crow's nest overlooking the small, closely packed town. It is served by a bus service. It is the sort of place to which people from Sowerby Bridge and Halifax go by bus for a breath of moorland air. The fact that there are only 110 houses and fewer

1473
than 350 inhabitants suggests that it is a rural locality. There is, anyhow, other evidence to support that view.
The West Riding County Council consultant engineer said in a letter addressed to the West Riding County Council on 3rd December, 1953, referring to the conditions there:
"…I have no doubt that they are such as to qualify for consideration in respect of grants-in-aid under the 1944 Act; the area concerned, although within the jurisdiction of an urban authority, seems to be undoubtedly largely rural in character."
The West Riding County Council itself gave notice that it accepted the view of their consultant engineer, and for the purposes of Section 2 of the 1944 Act, associated itself with his view. So there are two authorities who say that this is a rural area, and I say it is too, if one's observation and judgment is of any account. I have been over every yard of the proposed scheme since the Election and before.
When this matter was first put to the Ministry, however, the letter sent on behalf of the Minister, on 17th August, 1954, said,
"the Minister was not empowered to give grant under the above Acts unless the work to be done was for the benefit 'of a rural locality.' The term is not defined in the Act, and it is the Minister's practice to interpret it as broadly as possible, but in this case he is satisfied that the Norland Town district cannot be regarded as rural in character and it does not satisfy the requirement of the Act."
When the local authority made further representations on the matter, the Ministry replied, on 5th July, 1954:
"I have to state that grants under the above Acts are given to assist local authorities in the execution of rural schemes which, by reason of their expense, would otherwise be beyond local resources. In the case in question it is considered that the burden that will be imposed on the rates by carrying out the scheme is so small as not to warrant Exchequer assistance, quite apart from the question as to whether the area concerned is a rural locality for the purposes of the Acts."
The Ministry, having first taken this stand on its view that this was not a rural locality, then shifted on to another leg, and said that, apart from that question, the burden on the rates imposed by the cost of this scheme was not serious enough to justify a grant. When I raised the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary on 17th November, 1954, to which
1474
he was good enough to reply on 30th November, 1954, he moved back on to the original foot. He said:
"I am afraid, however, that as the district does not in our opinion qualify as a rural locality, the burden on the rates, whatever view one may take about it, cannot be the deciding factor."
It rather looks as if this matter is being first argued on the question of "a rural locality," then on the question of the burden on the rates, and that the argument as then reverting to the definition of "a rural locality." What is the present case against the making of the grant? Is it that the Minister says this is not a rural locality? Or is he now saying that even if it is, the cost of the scheme is relatively small? I agree that the cost is approximately £10,000, which would be the equivalent of just over a penny rate, and that, the Minister may say, is really chicken feed, that the local authority can surely afford to bear that, and there is no reason, on economic grounds, for asking the Ministry to make a grant.
I submit that one cannot consider this type of burden in isolation. The rate poundage in Sowerby Bridge Urban District is 27s. in the pound, and there are substantial burdens awaiting the local authority in numerous directions. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has ever heard of the straw which breaks the camel's back—or is he going to say that his sole interest is in the weight of the straw? I would draw his attention to the enormous problems that are confronting local authorities such as mine, where there is much that is old and inherited from the industrial development of a hundred years ago and much that has to be modernised, and where amenities are being provided for the outlying areas at great expense.
In the Sowerby Bridge Urban District, out of a total of 6,500 dwellings, there are 30 per cent. which fall short of proper standards in ventilation alone. There are 1,820 back-to-back houses, and hon. Members know what they are like; one door only in and out. There is no back door. There are 164 back-to-earth houses built into the hill-side with the back wall embedded in the rock or soil of the hill, with consequent problems of damp and other objectionable features which are very serious. There are 265 single back houses and 52 with only

1475
single rooms. I am told that 15 per cent. of the total number of dwellings in the urban district are such that they would justify inclusion in a clearance area.
Substantial grants are being made for the improvement and modernising of old houses and the local authority is cooperating to the utmost to help local owners to improve their property. Facing the local authority is the problem of carrying out a scheme for the treatment of sewage and trade wastes at an estimated cost of £30,000 a year, not all of which will be recoverable from traders. Substantial works for street improvement and maintenance have been held in abeyance for a long time. The sum of £25,000 should now be spent on improvements of very defective conditions in streets and surrounding roads of the area.
I think that the Minister must consider the question broadly. It is not sufficient to say that this is not a rural locality when anyone who knows it would say that it is. It is not enough to consider this as a case of a slight additional financial burden on the local authority, as this is cumulative. Looking at the map does not convey the true position of Norland in relation to Sowerby Bridge unless one studies the contour lines, because there is a sharp incline rising from Sowerby Bridge to this isolated urban area. I hope that these further representations I have made to the Minister will enable him to take a more sympathetic view of the claims of my constituents under the provisions of the 1944 Act.
11.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): When we were discussing the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill a little while ago, the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made an intervention on the subject of the grants under the Act, and I appreciated that he had a domestic interest in the subject which he has been able to unfold more fully tonight.
We fully appreciate the heavy commitments which Sowerby Bridge has to undertake or has undertaken, and certainly the drainage problems which confront the council. I believe the hon.
1476
Member mentioned £30,000 expenditure a year on that project. The town has industries which use a lot of water that has to be purified before it goes into the river. We know from experience that a lot of these industrial wastes are best treated with domestic sewage at sewage disposal works and the council has concentrated on that method of tackling the drainage problem. We hope to hear soon the exact plans that the council has so that a start can be made on an attempt at least to relieve the pollution of the River Calder.
I do not overrate the task which confronts the urban district council in improving the drainage in the main built-up part of the town but that is not the main issue which concerned the hon. Member tonight. Very naturally, the council and the hon. Member, on its behalf, are anxious, faced by this very considerable task, to have any help that may be forthcoming in the way of grant. I think that that is really his feeling. It has occurred to him that, if not in respect of the main scheme, at least in respect of the minor scheme of Norland Town, the Rural Water Supplies Act might fill the bill in every sense of the word.
As the hon. Member knows, because I mentioned this in the speech to which he has referred, the crux of the matter is expressed in the 1944 Act, namely, the "rural locality." That is the heart of it. A rural locality qualifies for grant under the Act, but nothing else does. I admit that this expression "rural locality," is not easily defined. It is not defined in the Act.
To find the right answer, as often as not we have to take into account the background of the Rural Water Acts. They were designed to encourage the improvement of the water supplies and sewerage in the countryside, bearing in mind that in many rural areas it is exceptionally expensive to provide these services. There is, for instance, the length of pipe required to carry the water from one point to another, and the layout is likely to be far more expensive than the layout in any town. That is the background against which we consider the expression, "rural water supplies". We look at the general character and geography of any locality, its population, its density, the way it is

1477
spread out, and factors of that kind, before deciding whether an area comes within the scope of the Act.
I think the hon. Member will agree that this commonsense approach produces a fairer answer than any attempt to design a rigid formula in regard to a "rural locality".
Mr. Houghton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to say that nothing makes common sense to me unless it produces the money.
Mr. Deedes: I am speaking of the large number of area which we have to consider, some of which are included, and some of which would like to be included, but unfortunately are not. In the circumstances, I think that the hon. Member will agree that the main Sowerby Bridge scheme falls outside the scope of any grant.
Then there is the question of the Nor-land Town scheme. Norland Town was formerly part of the Halifax Rural District, and is now part of the Sowerby Bridge Urban District. We do not regard this as conclusive evidence of attachment to an urban or a rural area. The important point, which the hon. Member did not mention, is that Nor-land Town is situated less than a mile from the centre of Sowerby Bridge, which is a town of some 18,000 people. I took the point which the hon. Member made, but I have the contour lines on a map beside me. As the crow flies, or in a bee-line, the distance from Norland Town to the centre of Sowerby Bridge is about a mile.
That, in my opinion, makes it impossible to treat these two parts of the area in isolation. I assure the hon. Member that this is not the only case in which
1478
the matter has been decided in that way. We have compared this with other cases, and I am not satisfied that, on that basis, this is an unfair verdict. The hon. Member twitted me with switching from this question of "rural locality" to the question of the rates. It is true, and it is fair to add, that the rate burden on the Sowerby Bridge Urban District Council would not be onerous. However, that is not a matter which is usually considered in deciding the locality.
The object is to give assistance to rural areas where the scheme would be exceptionally expensive, and where it is likely that it would not be started unless some financial assistance were given. This assistance, with the county council assistance, which is added, conies to a considerable amount. That is the standard on which we judge it. From the engineering point of view this scheme is not a very complicated one, and of course it is only a small part of what the council have in mind.
Let me emphasise that in being unable to bring this small scheme within the terms of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, I hope it will not be thought that we lack sympathy with the council and what it wants to do in its main project. I hope it will not be taken as a gesture discouraging the council in what is undoubtedly a very large and difficult task. We want to encourage the council, and we will do everything we can to do so, but, however worthy the scheme, I am afraid that it does not entitle us to devote money made available by Parliament to a scheme for which, in our very carefully considered view, that money was not intended.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Northern Ireland Development Council
  Northern Ireland Development Council
  Hackney Carriage Laws
  Hackney Carriage Laws
  Police Dogs
  Police Dogs
  Motor Vehicles (Silencers)
  Motor Vehicles (Silencers)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Police Control)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Police Control)
EDUCATION
  Teachers' Training Colleges
  Teachers' Training Colleges
  Technical Colleges
  Technical Colleges
  Grammar School Places
  Grammar School Places
  Classes (Size)
  Classes (Size)
  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (UNITED KINGDOM EMIGRANTS)
  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (UNITED KINGDOM EMIGRANTS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Imported Machinery (Duty-free Licensing)
  Imported Machinery (Duty-free Licensing)
  FISHERIES CONVENTIONS (CONSERVATION)
  FISHERIES CONVENTIONS (CONSERVATION)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
BRITISH ARMY
  Home Guard (Long Service Medal)
  Home Guard (Long Service Medal)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Production, Breconshire and Radnorshire
  Milk Production, Breconshire and Radnorshire
  Pig Subsidies (Administration)
  Pig Subsidies (Administration)
  Production
  Production
  CEMETERY COMPANY, NOTTINGHAM
  CEMETERY COMPANY, NOTTINGHAM
MINISTER OF HEALTH
  Dunstan Hill Hospital
  Dunstan Hill Hospital
  Dental Treatment (Priority Classes)
  Dental Treatment (Priority Classes)
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine
  Diphtheria Immunisation
  Diphtheria Immunisation
EMPLOYMENT
  Dock Labour Board
  Dock Labour Board
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Opencast Mining Applications
  Opencast Mining Applications
  Grenfell Factories, South Wales
  Grenfell Factories, South Wales
POST OFFICE
  Postmen, Wales (Light-weight Jackets)
  Postmen, Wales (Light-weight Jackets)
SCOTLAND
  East Kilbride
  East Kilbride
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Hydrocarbon Oils
  Hydrocarbon Oils
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
Preamble
The House met at half past three of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Lord Ker (M. Lothian)—Took the Oath.
The Lord Hylton—Took the Oath.

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 in these terms:
"I have received your Addresses praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation) Order, 1955; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the World Health Organisation) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1955; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara) Order, 1955; and the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of Western European Union) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament.
"I will comply with your request."

TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

LICENSING (AIRPORTS) BILL [H.L.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to exempt international
526
airports from the restrictions on the times at which intoxicating liquor may be sold or supplied. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

THE TOURIST INDUSTRY
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS VISCOUNT FURNESS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are prepared to take in respect of the tourist industry with special reference to the urgent necessity for expanding hotel facilities and improving other holiday amenities in Britain. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope it is not necessary for me to apologise to your Lordships for raising this subject at this time. At the same time, I can assure your Lordships that I shall not be as long on my feet as certain noble Lords would like people not to be on their feet. Britain's tourist industry has increased in volume and value year by year since the end of the war. I do not want to weary your Lordships with statistics, but it is perhaps interesting to note that in 1947 slightly over 400,000 visitors to this country spent, including fares on British ships and aircraft, £33 million, of which £9½ million was in United States dollars. In 1954, over 900,000 visitors spent £137 million, of which just over £39 million was in United States dollars. This dollar revenue which derives from the tourist industry yields considerably more than any other single industry's contribution to revenue from overseas.
I feel that tribute must be paid to the British Travel and Holidays Association for their efforts which, to a great extent, have been responsible for this increase in revenue. I am sure we are all grateful to Her Majesty's Government for the substantial grant-in-aid which is paid to this organisation. At the same time, I should like to remind my noble friend who is to reply that there is a considerable market, almost untouched, which could provide many needed dollars—I am thinking of Central and South America where little, if anything, has been done to promote the "Come to Britain" movement. Of course, many South Americans speak English and read British and American

527
periodicals in which excellent advertising material welcomes tourists to Britain. But I hope that Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind that much remains to be done by the British Travel and Holidays Association and that many more foreign visitors can be attracted to this country. We have not yet reached our maximum.
The first specific point about which I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government to-day is whether they can give me any encouragement on bettering the lot of the hotel industry. It is well known that there are certain disadvantages attaching to hotels which have been discussed in this House and elsewhere many times before. I will not weary your Lordships with them now. No other export industry has to pay purchase tax on the tools of its trade. I gather that it is estimated by those actively engaged in the tourist trade in this country that 5,000 new hotel rooms of good standing are urgently required in the main tourist centres, especially in London and in Edinburgh. In regard to Scotland I need say no more, because I note that my noble friend Lord Rosebery will be speaking later. When I say "new hotel rooms," I do not necessarily mean new hotels. One might almost say that there is enough public room accommodation—dining rooms, bars and things of that sort—but, putting it at its mildest, the bedroom accommodation in most of Britain's hotels leaves much to be desired. Many hotels advertise the fact that their rooms have hot and cold running water, as if it were something of a novelty. Really, this should not be the case in this Year of Grace, 1955. Hotels should be boasting, if at all, that all their rooms have their own bathrooms, radio and television sets.
I am sorry to have to underline this question of plumbing, but it has come to my notice that more and more people, not only tourists from overseas but our own holiday-makers and people travelling on business, are insisting on their own bathrooms. That is what they get in other countries and that, I submit, is what they are entitled to have here. I realise, of course, that I cannot in justice lay the inadequacy of our hotels at the feet of Her Majesty's Government, but I should be grateful if my noble friend could tell your Lordships whether there are any
528
practical steps which the Government could take at this time or are planning to take in the near future.
With your Lordships' permission, I will now turn to the question of immigration control. As my noble friend who is to reply is well aware, there have been complaints at certain ports that it has taken undue time to process the foreign visitor. A number of cross-Channel services carry immigration inspectors who can attend to quite a number of foreign visitors but rarely to all the non-British passport holders on the ship. Could there not be, during the peak tourist season, more inspectors per boat than at present, and, perhaps, more boats with these inspectors on board? I should not imagine that such a step would require any more inspectors, although I may be wrong. I should like to pay tribute to the unfailing courtesy, combined with efficiency, which characterises the officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise who come into contact with the tourist or traveller on business, whether foreign or British. I should also like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their introduction of passport-free trips to and from France. I realise that it is much too early yet to appraise the success of the scheme, but can my noble friend say whether he would consider extending the scheme to three-day visits, such as weekends, and also to visits to other nearby countries, such as Belgium and the Netherlands.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has this afternoon forestalled one question which I was going to put to Her Majesty's Government: whether there was any likelihood of their introducing a Bill to give 24-hour licensing to airports. I should like to thank my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of all tourists and the tourist industry, for taking this step. I venture to hope that it will be the first of many to simplify the licensing laws in this country.
To turn from indulgence, perhaps in flights of fancy, to airports, could something be done about the airport departure charge of 5s. per passenger imposed when leaving State airports? This charge, was introduced in 1952, and I am informed that last year it yielded only £267,000, compared with a total dollar revenue from tourism of over £39 million. Is there any real justification for this charge, which brings in such a small sum

529
in revenue, yet causes so much petty annoyance? I know it is now possible for the air lines to collect this fee at the time tickets are picked up, but in many cases foreign visitors will have bought their tickets outside this country and will still have to remember to keep 5s. handy for this departure charge, or they may otherwise have to cash a traveller's cheque and end up with sterling in hand. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that sterling is a desirable currency to have, but it may not be freely interchangeable for other currencies where the tourists are going.
3.43 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am sorry that I am sandwiched between the noble Lord who has just spoken and the formidable figure of the noble Lord who is to speak next and who speaks with great authority about tourism in Scotland. He has, I believe, a remarkable story of improvement and advance to tell us. I find myself entirely at one with the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, in everything that he has said, including the rather cryptic remark that he was not going to talk for any longer than people thought he ought not to talk. I shall try to follow his good example. I have to declare an interest, though not a financial interest of any sort. I have the honour of being President of the British Travel and Holidays Association, and for many years past I have interested myself in this business.
I should like all your Lordships to understand quite plainly that we have here a great potential asset. As the noble Viscount has said, we have brought the number of visitors to this country up to over 900.000 in 1954. We should most certainly have had over one million visitors this year had it not been for the effects of the strikes. I sometimes think that when people undertake strikes so lightheartedly they do not realise the harm they may be doing to this country. That seamen's strike must, I think, have done considerable harm to our tourist industry and to our reputation. I hope that that damage will be repaired in the near future.
The problem which Her Majesty's Government have to face is this: I believe that the total of 900,000 could be increased to one million, and that, in time, that one million might be increased to two million, because I believe that in
530
this field there remains untapped a vast area which would be a tremendous source of currency. The difficulty can be stated simply: there is not the accommodation. We in the British Travel and Holidays Association estimate (and this is a rather moving thought) that the accommodation available in hotels is to-day 10 per cent. less than it was before the war. Hoteliers are doing most wonderful work, in most difficult circumstances, but in the present circumstances one cannot expect people to build new hotels. The financial considerations of the problem must be adjusted. If hotels are wanted, then it must be made possible for these people to build hotels. To-day that is neither practicable nor possible. That is the hard fact. And if we do not have hotels we cannot increase the number of tourists. I remember that when I was in office there was a project for a well-known American chain of hotels to build a great hotel in this country. It meant building a luxury hotel at a time when we were very short of buildings and when people were hard up for housing. It was, of course, a very tall order to propose devoting a considerable amount of labour and materials at that time to building a luxury hotel; but I pointed out to some of my colleagues that, had this been a factory and had We been asked for materials to equip a factory, they would have agreed very readily if that factory was to earn dollars. The hotel would have earned dollars.
That is almost all the message that I have to give to your Lordships, except to say that I hope we in this country may become a little more tourist-minded. This country has many attractions, although the weather does not always deserve praise. I must say, however, that in this country, for the young people at any rate, the evenings are a bit dull. From the tourist point of view it would be a good thing if we could brighten up our great centres a little for the young people. I have long passed the age when I desired to have my evenings brightened up, so I do not speak feelingly about the matter; but I remember that when I was young I did want my evenings brightened up. A large number of tourists are young people and they want brighter evenings now. May I join in heartiest congratulations to Her Majesty's Government on the small measure about licensing at airports.

531
That is obviously a step in the right direction.
Another aspect of the tourist trade occurs to me. When we see reports, or hear rumours, of the pulling down of famous theatres, and that we are to have fewer theatres in this city, I feel it is lamentable from any point of view. But I am quite certain that it is particularly to be regretted from this point of view: that a great part of the attraction about coming to this country in the winter time is that people can see plays, and the stage. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to realise that it will be a disaster if all these theatres go and we become dependent upon the funny men on the radio—if, indeed, one likes to be dependent on such things: I confess that I do not very much. I beg Her Majesty's Government to face up squarely to the facts of the hotel position. That is the clue to the whole problem. If they can make it possible for people to build new hotels, with accommodation of the kind that is up to date now, we may double our tourist trade. But if the Government do not make that possible, then it will mean that we have just about reached the maximum point. I very much hope that this country will take the course of increasing its tourist trade, because not only does it provide a means whereby we earn dollars and hard currency but it is also a source of great goodwill and understanding that we should get foreign visitors from all over the world to come here, get to know this country, and see the lovely things we have to show.
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I welcome the Question which has been asked today by my noble friend Lord Furness, because, although I know what help Her Majesty's Government have given to Britain's tourist industry in the past, I hope that we may have some immediate and practical steps which will secure the full benefits from this industry and give increasing encouragement to hoteliers, transport operators and others throughout the country who are doing an excellent job at the present time in catering both for our own holidaymakers and also for those from overseas. As the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said, the tourist industry has grown enormously in
532
the last few years, and is now one of the most progressive in our country. I am told, on good authority, that there is every likelihood that, in spite of the strike which we have just had, the number of visitors to Britain this year will be a record.
The public in general, I think, now have a proper appreciation of the great value which this industry has for the country as a whole, for it is not only the hoteliers and the transport operators who do well out of it: practically every other trade, and certainly every section of the community, stands to benefit from holidaymaking. In proof of what I am saying, the Scottish Tourist Board (like the noble and learned Earl opposite, I have an interest to declare in this connection, for I have the honour to be chairman of this Board—unpaid, of course) recently requested a firm of chartered accountants in Glasgow to make an independent valuation of tourist and holiday trade in Scotland. The chartered accountants, after an exhaustive inquiry, reached the conclusion that the pure holiday and tourist traffic being enjoyed by Scotland to-day is worth at least £44 million per annum. The bulk of that money, spent initially through hoteliers, boarding-house keepers and transport operators, is being passed on to a great variety of traders in the purchase of goods and services.
This does not mean, however, that we must stand still on what we have done. On the contrary, I feel that the time is now ripe for Her Majesty's Government to do something, especially in Scotland. I should like to see them re-examine the position of the tourist industry and help us to develop it even more fully. A few years ago, a great many places in Scotland could not anticipte a peak season of more than about twelve weeks. Now, practical steps have been taken to prove that there is a large public willing to take its holidays in the early months of March, April and May, and in the later months of September and October. Holiday-making has entirely changed in the last thirty or forty years. In the old days, as a rule, people wanted to remain in one place for their holiday; now there is an increasing urge for them to travel round our country and see its beauties. That is why I would strongly advocate a bolder policy in relation to the development of our roads, particularly in the

533
Highlands which are one of the most popular factors in the "Come to Britain" campaign.
Many of the roads in the Highlands, particularly those branching off from the main north and south highways, were built to meet the needs of traffic fifty or a hundred years ago, when the needs were very small, and they are far out of date as regards modern traffic requirements. The last thing I want is the creation in the Highlands of great, long, straight speed tracks such as we understand are being proposed for districts further south. I should like to continue with the turning and twisting roads from which one can see so well the beauties of that area; but anyone who has motored over them knows that the majority of the existing roads are too narrow and should be broadened. Moreover, there are one or two places in the Highlands where quite short new roads could be built which would open up great new areas for the tourist trade. They are also much wanted to link up one main road with another. Let me take an example: there is not only a great necessity for the Road to the Isles from Fort William to Mallaig to be improved and enlarged, but we require a short new road of about fourteen miles to link up Loch Rannoch with the Glencoe road—it would be only a stretch of fourteen miles, as I say—so that we could go the whole way round. These instances of which I have spoken are quite small undertakings compared with those which, I understand, we are to have in England.
I should like to say a few words to supplement what the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said about the importance of hotel accommodation—a matter on which Lord Furness also touched. We are, as the noble Viscount said, exceedingly short of first-class accommodation in Edinburgh, and consequently we have to turn away many visitors who would bring in a large amount of dollars. We have excellent hotels but not enough of them; and some of them are not up to first-class standard. Many of these hoteliers would like to develop their facilities but, as the noble and learned Earl said, they have not the capital. I suggest that, after examination of each particular case, there might be a possibility of encouraging hoteliers financially by making available to them Government loans at a low rate of interest. Here I am not
534
talking of Edinburgh, but of Scotland as a whole, and I am sure the same system would be welcomed in England. There are, as we know, agricultural loans which have done a great deal of good. With an enormous, growing industry like the one of which we are speaking, I feel that the Government, by making a comparatively small outlay, would facilitate the bringing in of a very great deal.
One last word. Like the previous speakers, I would congratulate my noble friend Lord Mancroft on the Bill which he has just introduced. It means twenty-four hours licensing in Prestwick which will be most welcome—not that we are a particularly thirsty race ourselves, but it will enable us suitably to welcome our guests from overseas, and also from England, at all hours of the day and night.
4.0 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I think it is true to say that the tourist industry can be divided into two sections. One section is concerned with visitors from overseas, and the other with our own people who wish to take holidays, either in this country or abroad. There is one set of people whose business it is to look after both these sections of the tourist industry—that is, the travel agents. I think we can say with truth that the travel agents in this country comprise a hard-working, efficient and reputable profession. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that there has been in the last few months an amalgamation of the two main bodies connected with travel—the Association of British Travel Agents and the Institute of Travel Agents. I feel that this is an excellent thing, because it means that in future the great majority of travel agents in this country will speak with one voice.
As a member of the Council of the new body, I should like to assure your Lordships that it is our aim to ensure the highest possible standards of integrity and good service among our members. We shall admit to membership only those who we are satisfied are going to keep up these high standards. I believe that more and more, as time goes on, the insignia of the Association of British Travel Agents, the compass rose, with the letters A.B.T.A. upon it, will become the hallmark of integrity. I think it is opportune to remark here how much better it is to leave an industry to put

535
its own house in order rather than to introduce any system of Government licensing, such as was suggested at one time. I should also mention that it is the intention of A.B.T.A. to develop the institute side of its organisation in the shape of educational courses for young men wishing to improve their knowledge of the industry and possibly, later on, a series of examinations.
I should like to say a few words about what I have called the first part of the tourist industry—namely, the visitors from overseas. One of the most important things for visitors coming to this country is that their first impressions should be good. In that connection, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on having introduced the Airports (Licensing) Bill. Your Lordships may remember that that was something I advocated a good many years ago, and I had begun to despair about anything being done. Time means nothing to a man who has been flying all night across the Atlantic, and it is essential that he should be able to get a drink, if he has had a rough passage or is late. The fact that he can get a drink when he arrives, whatever the time, is something that makes a good first impression.
We ought to have our "front doors" clean and tidy, and well painted. Are all our "front doors" above reproach? Some of them are excellent. In Southampton we have the finest ocean terminal in the world. The new London Airport buildings, although not yet complete, are something of which we can be proud, though it will be some years before the Atlantic lines get over to the new centre. Much improvement has taken place at Plymouth, too, but there are still black spots in our ports. I think Harwich is about the worst, and I beg the Government to do something about that port. Facilities are so bad that often foreign visitors miss the first boat train to London, which is very irritating for them and gives a very bad first impression, particularly if they have friends meeting them on arrival at Liverpool Street. Another port where improvements are necessary is Folkestone. I am glad to see that something has been done about the Irish Pier at Liverpool, but the facilities at the ocean landing stage are still far below what they ought to be
536
for one of our major ports. In making these criticisms, let me make it clear that I am criticising only the "front doors". I think that the doorkeepers, in the shape of customs officers and immigration officers, set an example of courtesy throughout the world—even on the rare occasions when they not only have to remove the hats and coats of visitors but also their shirts. As my noble friend Lord Furness has mentioned, one thing which causes some irritation in the travel industry is the 5s. airport charge. The whole industry would very much like to see it abolished.
I am not going to say much about hotels because that aspect has been dealt with thoroughly by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. As a member of the travel industry, may I say how much we appreciate the great work the noble and learned Earl has done as President of the British Travel and Holidays Association? His presence at travel occasions in this country is frequent, and he has made a great name for himself in the tours which he has made of various parts of the world. We hope he will long continue as President of B.T.H.A. As the noble and learned Earl has said, the building of a modern hotel is not an economic proposition to-day without some outside or Government help. Anyone who travels about the world, as I do, will see in many other countries, particularly in Spain, magnificent hotels that have been built with Government assistance. The tourist is bound to compare the hotels in this country unfavourably with hotels in countries where this is being done. I think that more could be done in taking off purchase tax on equipment and furnishings. A little has been done, I know, but to my mind not nearly enough.
Before I sit down I should like to say a word about our own people travelling abroad. Of course, we should all like to see the restrictions on travel allowances abolished altogether, and I feel that the time is not far off when that could be done. It is most serious that there is not even a small travel allowance for travellers to Canada and America. If these restrictions were abolished, I do not think it would involve any great drain on the dollar resources of this country. Surely at this time it is vital for the English and American peoples to understand each other. It is impossible for

537
young men and women to learn anything about America when they have only garbled versions from films and novels. In many cases people travelling to Australia or New Zealand have to go by the Panama Canal when they would prefer to cross America and spend a few days there, an impossibility at present because they cannot get any dollars. If they had a small allowance, so that they could feel independent, many people would be prepared to accept invitations from American friends; but they feel they cannot do so if they have no pocket money whatsoever.
I am sure that we are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Furness for having initiated this debate. I should like to give him every support, and to say how grateful those of us in the travel industry are to him.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
4.10 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, in the few words that I shall address to your Lordships this afternoon I should like to support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Furness. We are all much indebted to him for raising this question, because the tourist industry, as previous speakers have said, is of paramount importance to this country. It brings in the greatest amount of dollars we earn. With regard to hotels, I would point out that there has been a great improvement in hotels and restaurants in this country over the last few years. When I had the pleasure of taking part in previous debates on this subject we had rationing of vital materials such as linen and crockery, and there were difficulties in obtaining licences to paint and repair. Luckily, we have now passed that period But there is still a heavy purchase tax on vital raw materials, and I hope that something may be done to overcome that difficulty in the future.
As the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, said, we cannot increase the tourist traffic unless we increase bedroom accommodation. It is appalling to know what it costs to build a modern hotel today. I believe that only two or three have been built in this country since the war. There is a new one in Bond Street, most of the capital being held by our American friends; I believe that one in Coventry which was bombed has been rebuilt,
538
and perhaps a few small ones with about twenty bedrooms. We have to get down to the problem of reducing the cost of building hotels, and especially extensions for bedrooms. A great deal has been done in the building industry by prefabrication. I would ask the Government whether they can help, with the scientific laboratory which we have for building research, in seeing if more cannot be done for these hotels by way of prefabrication, thus cutting down the cost. In my view, that is where our best chance lies. Also (and this is a matter with which we shall have to deal at a later stage) there are the restrictive practices and rings in the building industry, and particularly the tight ring in rainwater goods and goods which are much needed for sanitation, for extra bathrooms, and so on. The prices of rainwater goods and sanitary goods are high, and they will have to be looked at. I feel that we should do something on the line of trying to get the building costs reduced. It is nearly impossible to build a hotel today and be able to let the rooms at prices that people can afford to pay. And, unless we can provide more rooms, obviously we cannot increase our tourist traffic.
Then there is the vital question of staffing the extra rooms, if we are able to build more hotels and extensions to present hotels. I would ask the Government whether they would consider "letting up" a little on allowing French and Italian cooks to come into this country. I understand that at present that is permitted only on an exchange basis. That is all very well if we can find people interested in going to those countries to learn the art of cooking, and especially to France, where their art is much greater than ours in that line; but if we cannot find the people to go there, then I feel we should consider allowing a few more young French cooks to come into this country. What I have been told—and I believe it is correct—is that there is a shortage of staff in hotels. A good job of work was done, and is being done, by the London County Council in training men as cooks, and in other trades necessary for hotels, but there are not anything like enough, and there do not seem to be enough people going into the industry—possibly because they are attracted by the higher wages in other industries. We must face that point and

539
consider allowing more cooks to come into this country. It is also important that we train more of our own cooks to a higher standard of cooking. We have excellent food in this country if only it is presented in the proper way. With those few words, I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, and also to welcome the Bill which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Mancroft for the licensing of airports, which I am sure will help a great deal.
4.15 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I gladly join with noble Lords who have already spoken in supporting the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Furness. One phrase used by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has stuck in my mind. He said that we must all become much more tourist-minded. It is, after all, the attitude of mind of all of us that is important in increasing this trade. A few months ago I had the privilege of being one of a mission invited to Switzerland by the International Parliamentary Union, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I (and I am sure this applies to the other members of the mission) was greatly struck by the attitude of mind of all the Swiss people in relation to the people visiting their country. Wherever they were and whatever they did, whether they worked in the fields, in the forest, in the factory or in the transport system, they strove by their personal activity to show their immense pride in their own country. They could not do enough to make their particular job as near perfect as possible, and whenever one approached them they always gave the maximum of information. I believe that is what the noble and learned Earl had in mind when he spoke about the necessity of our becoming much more tourist-minded.
As we all well know, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is to reply, is an extremely persuasive speaker, and I should like to switch on the wireless fairly regularly and hear the noble Lord addressing the country and encouraging the people to become different in their attitude and outlook to the tourist business. I am sure the noble Lord could do a lot, for example, to explain that the welcome of people to these shores is not encouraged when they get stuck up, as so many of them do—and we do, too—
540
with the vast accretion of chewing gum thrown on the railway platforms, in subways and all over the place. We do not see this kind of thing in other countries and we should not see it here. I appeal to the noble Lord to use his power to get on to the wireless and to lead a campaign for a change in the attitude of mind, so that more people may be encouraged to come here and so that this important trade may grow considerably.
4.18 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I am prompted, by what was said by my noble and learned leader and by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, to say a word or two in support of the general theme of encouraging the tourist industry. It is true that one of the advantages is that the tourist industry brings in dollars, but I should not like to think that it was merely the dollar aspect that was persuading us to encourage this industry. I believe that far more value is to be obtained from the fact that people come over and see us in our homes, and see the kind of life that we live, for that encourages the good will and friendship that we are so anxious to encourage. I do not think even the powers of oratory of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, could possibly describe the hair-raising experience of travelling by road from Fort William to Mallaig: only those who have done it can know what a fearful experience it is. I heard a story to the effect that on one occasion during an Election, when the candidate was compelled to go round that constituency, his chauffeur took him as far as Mallaig but preferred to throw up his job rather than take the candidate back again.
One thing I want to say. The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, is probably aware that some time ago in Glasgow a large hotel, built specifically as a hotel, closed its business in order that a large firm—and I agree it is a firm that ought to be encouraged—could take over the building for office purposes. I am wondering whether a word could not be said to the planning committees of our towns and cities in Scotland to suggest that they should consider whether it is always desirable to allow a hotel to be used as offices, rather than remain as a hotel. I think I am also right in saying that at St. Andrews there appears to be a difficulty in keeping some of the hotels open

541
as hotels. There, too, perhaps, the local authority could do something to encourage the continuance of these hotels.
There is one other thing I should like to say. In Glasgow we are now fortunate in possessing a hotel school which is doing admirable work and attracting an excellent quality of students for the purpose of learning the intricacies of the hotel industry as a whole. So far as my knowledge goes, that school is doing most valuable work which is appreciated by the hotel industry. For these reasons, I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Furness.
4.21 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, some three or four years ago my noble friend Lord Furness made his maiden speech upon the very subject of the tourist industry. By happy coincidence, I chanced that day to follow him in the debate, and had the honour to congratulate him on the excellent speech he gave us. So it is for me particularly satisfactory that I should be answering the noble Viscount to-day. It also gave me the chance of indulging in the purifying experience of re-reading my own speech, to make quite sure that I said nothing then which was likely to be at direct variance with the observations I intend to offer your Lordships this afternoon. I am happy to say that I have a fairly clear conscience.
As my noble friend Lord Furness said in his remarks, the Government are in a difficulty on this subject because, of course, they are not directly responsible for everything that has been touched upon in the course of this debate. I am not trying in any way to rid myself of any awkward problem, but I thought I must warn your Lordships that I cannot answer all the questions that have been put to me, simply because it is not within the power of the Government to know the answer or forecast the future. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, made it perfectly clear that the Government should not come any nearer to the industry than they are at the moment. Of course, the Government are acutely interested in the tourist industry—and why indeed not? As has been brought out in this debate this afternoon, our tourist industry now claims, I think with some justification, to be almost our highest net earner of dollars. The figures which two or three noble Lords have given, showing
542
a rise of from 500,000 visitors in 1937 to about I million now, and earnings of £43 million then to about £136 million now, make that point perfectly clear.
What the effect of the strike has been is, I am afraid, anybody's guess. It clearly has been most unfortunate, and not only in money. I have seen a figure of 3 million dollars mentioned, but with what authority I know not. Nor can one forget the loss in goodwill. I heartily endorse the remarks of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, which he offered to your Lordships on this subject. I also endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Wolverton, who drew quite correctly the deduction from these figures that our tourist industry has increased and improved beyond all recognition in the last few years. I think it is important that that should be said, because it is always the grumblers who get heard more clearly than those who speak with approval. The evidence available shows quite clearly that foreigners in their thousands are approving the efforts we have made to give them a better welcome in this country.
But, as I say, the Government cannot take all the credit for this, because most of the industry is, of course, in private hands. It is difficult to answer for a partnership and, therefore, I must straight away pay a tribute—and I do it most willingly—to the industry for the way in which they have tackled their job, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and his fellow travel agents for the way in which they have helped. Lastly, I pay my tribute to the British Travel and Holidays Association, and with it to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for the work they have done. Your Lordships are frequently brought into touch with their work through their publication Coming Events which has a place in our Library—and an excellent publication it is—and which tells abroad the story of Britain in a most admirably clear and persuasive way. The British Travel and Holidays Association is not a Government Department at all. It is the chosen agent of the Government for tourist publicity and propaganda overseas. I should like to join in my tribute to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and to the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, Chairman of our Scottish allies. It is only a coincidence that makes us unable to complete

543
the trilogy in that the chairman of the Welsh board is not a member of your Lordships' House.
The grant which the Government give to B.T.H.A. has recently risen from about £600,000 in 1950 to nearly £775,000 this year. That, I think, shows how anxious the Government are to help wherever possible. There are a wide variety of ways in which the Government can help the tourist industry, and I will try and touch upon a few this afternoon. That help can vary from the roads programme (which was elaborated in some detail yesterday by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport) to the new Licensing Bill which I had the honour to introduce into your Lordships' House this afternoon and which I am grateful to learn has found favour in your Lordships' eyes. I think it will materially increase the considerable amenities already available at London Airport, in particular—of course, I do not forget Prestwick.
I think that London Airport is going to increase greatly our travel amenities, The new scheme went through its teething troubles, of course. By coincidence, I happened to go through London Airport on the first day the new terminal buildings opened. It took me eighty minutes to fly from Dublin to London, and eighty-five minutes to get from one side of the terminal buildings to the other. It is now much improved, and is working smoothly and giving great satisfaction to travellers who use it. I am quite certain that the addition of these new facilities will make it even more popular.
EARL JOWITT: May I ask a question which I do not think has been mentioned? Will the noble Lord also consider the question of export shops, such as one sees at many foreign airports, so that travellers who are leaving this country can, without paying purchase tax at all, buy goods from these shops and take them abroad. Might that point be considered?
LORD MANCROFT: I will certainly consider it, but, speaking quickly and without reference to the book. I think it is much easier to have such shops at airports dealing only with transit passengers. I believe there is one at Prestwick which works satisfactorily. At an airport like London, which has a mass
544
of passengers, travellers, visitors and sightseers, the difficulty is greater, and I gather that the restrictions might have to be considerable.
I turn now to the main subject of the noble Viscount's Question, hotels. Of course, I accept at once the premise on which the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, has based his argument. There is, indeed, a danger of the shortage of accommodation limiting the number of visitors whom we might otherwise attract to these shores. That is particularly so in London and in centres of tourist attraction like Edinburgh. The B.T.H.A. have given us a figure of 5,000 additional rooms required, of which probably 2,500, or nearly 3,000 are required in London alone. As the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, said, we also require far better sanitary conditions than the average hotel in this country can yet provide. The hotel industry has been through a very difficult time. Many hotels on the south coast and others were hit in the blitz. They have had to put up with restrictions and rationing. Building licences, however, are not now required. It is therefore not so easy to tell your Lordships what progress has been made in the reconditioning, repair and rebuilding of hotels. There have been two valuable additions, the Westbury, in Bond Street, and the Leofric. One noble Lord referred to the Leofric Hotel put up in Coventry by Ind. Coope and Allsop. I myself have visited these hotels, and they both do everybody great credit. General improvement there undoubtedly has been throughout the whole of the hotel industry. Cooking and hygiene are much improved, although I readily admit there is room for still more improvement.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that the number of students taking courses in hotel management and catering has increased from 1,500, just after the war, to about 8,000 now. I think that illustrates the interest which the trade is taking in improving its own capacity. The many excellent hotels, even small ones, which are now improving every day, I think only serve to show up some of the disgracefully bad hotels which, alas! still exist in this country. Hotels need not be "Grand Babylons" in order to be first-class. Many of us who travel about in this country know very small

545
hotels which have a standard of excellence unrivalled throughout the world, and they shame others which have not attained that standard. It is not great expenditure that necessarily makes them first-class hotels; it is mainly their excellent service. We all have our personal foibles. I personally can never see why a small hotel cannot provide China tea to attract those to the hotel who do not like tea that is strong enough to trot a mouse on. I use an electric razor, and I become infuriated with the hotel that requires me to dismantle the whole electrical system of the hotel before I can plug it in. The difficulty lies in the English habit of not complaining when dissatisfied. We take too much for granted. The best method of improving the few hotels in this country which still fall below standard is for those who use them to make their voices clearly heard when they are dissatisfied with the services which they receive. It is not a thing which the Government themselves can improve.
May I now touch on railway hotels and railway catering, because this marches very much with the thesis of the noble Viscount, Lord Furness. I think that in railway catering, in both food and accommodation, great improvements have been made in the last two or three years. A number of hotels owned by British Railways have been renovated and do good business. Cafeterias at main-line stations are now replacing the dingy dining rooms. Something like fifty buffet and cafeteria cars are now in operation on the main lines to supplement the restaurant cars for those who do not like a restaurant car service or cannot afford it, because undoubtedly it is expensive, though not so expensive as many of the similar services abroad. I think that, on the whole, the quality of the meals served on the railways has also improved a great deal in the last two or three years. We ought to pay tribute to the railways for that, although they still occasionally serve up a stew that defies analysis, or a piece of cod that passeth all understanding. But, on the whole, the standard has gone up very much in the last two or three years. The Commission are well aware of their responsibilities in this matter and are reviewing their programme to see, as a long-term policy, whether there is a demand for more hotels under their ownership.
546
What can the Government do to help? The Government have no direct control of the industry; it is completely independent. Hotels value their independence. There is, however, one thing that the Government can do to help, and I am certain that this is a point which will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill: the Government can get out of hotels. A hotel is not the right place for a Government Department anyway. Since the war, 4,170 hotels, restaurants, boarding-houses, hostels and holiday camps have been released from requisition. There are, so far as I can ascertain, only twelve hotels and boarding-houses now under requisition, and we are trying to reduce that number as fast as we can. I would also acid, for the information of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, that there are one or two hotels under requisition, some old-fashioned, seaside hotels, the return of which to their owners would be somewhat of an embarrassment. That is something that one should bear in mind when one hears of hotels occupied by civil servants and Government officers.
Of course, the Government appreciate the difficulties which the hoteliers still have to face. We are familiar with the problems they naturally put forward time and time again. There is the question of subsidies, and rivals abroad being able to build hotels on lease-lend; there is the question of purchase tax on the tools of their trade; there is the question of taxation on building improvements, and there is the question of the Catering Wages Act. All these things are painfully familiar. The Government appreciate the troubles of the hoteliers. But sympathy is not enough, though I think the hotel industry, in its turn, is well aware of the Government's difficulty in meeting the industry's requests in this respect. It just cannot be done. I presume that another inquiry will have to be held, now that the Royal Commission's Report on Taxation of Profits has been published, but it would be dishonest of me to suggest that in any of these things I can foresee any major concession at the moment.
I now turn to another subject where the Government have an interest, and that is the question of the railway services, with which the visitor to this country meets at an early stage in his travels. Again, the British Transport Commission

547
are well aware of their duty towards tourists; they are doing everything they can to make British railways more attractive to the tourist, and are improving train services as well as they can. Only two or three days ago a new express train, the South Wales Pullman, was put on from Paddington to Cardiff and Swansea. Railway stock is being modernised. In 1954, over 2,000 new coaches were put into service, which was twice the rate of the previous year. The programme for 1955–56 provides for no fewer than 4,000 new vehicles. Your Lordships will be aware of the proposed express diesel services between Edinburgh and Glasgow, between Birmingham and Swansea and between London and Hastings. From a long-term point of view, under the railway modernising plan, the Commission propose to build about 31,000 new passenger carriages at a cost of £230 million. I think those figures show that British Railways are well aware of their obligations towards the tourist industry.
There is one more point which is always a subject of criticism, and that is the cleanliness of railway carriages. The real difficulty is shortage of labour. A total of £1 million will be spent in this current year on mechanised cleaning arrangements. I very much hope that that will have some effect. Also, £1,200 million are to be spent by the railways on modernisation in the next fifteen years. Obviously, that will have a most marked effect on the tourist industry.
I turn now to another point which several noble Lords have raised, and that is the welcome which the foreigner gets at our "front door," as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, called it. Here, I wholeheartedly agree with him. I admit that all is not well at Harwich. That is perfectly true. I am already having an inquiry made to see how we can improve the facilities available to the visitor arriving at Harwich. The immigration officers and the other authorities do everything they possibly can to minimise the delay and inconvenience. Constant experiments are being made. I must remind your Lordships that one kind of action may not provide the solution for another. What will satisfy the Harwich-Hook service will not be the answer on the Transatlantic service. But the immigration authorities, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, are looking into this
548
matter the whole time and doing their best to meet the justified complaints which the noble Lord told us that travellers do make.
Southampton, as your Lordships know, has a new Ocean Terminal which was opened in 1950 and has proved a great success, and in the near future they will be finishing the new quayside accommodation for the South African trade: it will be completed, I think, at the end of this year. Plymouth has had restored a passenger ocean terminal opened a year or two ago. This also has proved a success. The Commission are planning to reconstruct the riverside quay at Hull. At Dover, the terminal car ferry, which cost about £750,000, is working well and taking cars through at the rate of about 240 an hour. It has been very well received by the tourists. At Newcastle, there has been completed a new passenger terminal which cost about £40,000 and which, incidentally, was modelled on the Southampton terminal. In London, the Port of London Authority also have a reconstruction programme. At Tilbury, they are putting in a new berth and a new passenger landing stage, costing about £1½ million, which will be completed in August of next year. I give those few examples of places which are familiar to travellers to show that at all places where the "front door" is open to the traveller we are doing our best, and, I am quite certain, will continue to do our best, to give the traveller the best welcome that we can. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, puts things too much in my hands if he suggests that I can do anything at all about chewing-gum.
Another aspect in which, I think, the Government can help is by taking an active part in international conferences to seek means of reducing international tourist confusion and misunderstanding. In this respect the Government are taking every opportunity they can to attend any international conference or participate in any international organisation that may lead to greater travel facilities. Progress has been made to a certain degree in getting rid of visas, and, as your Lordships know, there have been increased customs facilities for tourists. More than one noble Lord has mentioned the one day no-passport trips. This scheme got off, I am afraid, to a bad Press—a little unfairly I

549
thought. Much fun was made of the time it took to fill up the requisite form. I have one of the tickets here, if your Lordships would care to look at it afterwards. I timed myself in filling it up and I found that I took four and a half minutes. I am allergic to forms and, somehow or other, usually fill them in wrongly. I feel that some of the reports about these particular tickets are a little exaggerated. In any case, the French coming across here have a more elaborate procedure than we have. I do not hold out a great deal of hope for any considerable extension of the scheme. At the moment I do not see any chance of it extending over the one day. Such extension as is possible will certainly be investigated, but I do not see this scheme developing into a really big tourist attraction in the near future.
I have touched on only a few subjects, but I am certain that had my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara been here, he would have told me that I had touched on too many. I have mentioned the ones where the Government have some responsibility. I hope I have given no impression that Her Majesty's Government are complacent about the tourist industry. We are eager to do everything possible to help, encourage, support and foster the industry. The industry has indeed made great improvement—we can all see that with our own eyes. We can also see that there is room for further improvement. I welcome the concrete suggestions that have been made in the debate. I think the tourist industry too often suffers from wide and rather wild generalisations. A bad meal served at some hotel produces a letter to the local Press which results in a general attack on all such hotels which is usually quite unjustified.
I think it is a wise move to concentrate on the things about which we have evidence that there is need for improvement. As the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, wisely said, tourism is one of our great national assets, and Her Majesty's Government are only too happy to play their full part—to put it at its crudest—at selling these assets to the greatest number of buyers we can persuade to come and look at our shop window. We do that not only because we certainly need the cash but also
550
because the more people who come to Britain, the better for us and the better for them.
EARL JOWITT: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I point out that I do not think he has answered one question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery. Perhaps he can give us some information on this question, which is one that interests me very much. It deals with the fourteen miles of road which ought to connect Loch Rannoch with the main road running through Glencoe, thus opening up a most beautiful part of the Highlands which is not open at the moment. I, and I am sure Lord Rosebery, would be interested to know whether the noble Lord could give us a word of encouragement about it.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I was just about to draw that matter to the attention of my noble friend.
LORD MANCROFT: I am sorry I have been caught out. I was well aware of the fact that I had not mentioned that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and I have been looking at the map in my diary, but we cannot find the road.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It does not exist; that is the trouble.
LORD MANCROFT: We cannot then find where the road should be. I am afraid I cannot deal with that point now, but I will certainly make it my business to find out the whole story and to see whether there is an answer.
LORD GIFFORD: Could the noble Lord mention a word about the 5s. airport charge?
LORD MANCROFT: That matter was raised recently in another place, and, if I may, I will let the noble Lord have the answer which my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport gave on it. I am well aware of the irritation that is caused by it.

RATING AND VALUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
4.44 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that, though you may not like it, it has been agreed through the usual channels that we should have the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill on Monday next at half-past three. I am very sorry about it, but I am afraid it is inevitable. I have also to inform your Lordships that the formal meeting of the House to-morrow will be at a quarter-past eleven, and not at half-past eleven. Finally, I would inform you that the Summer Recess will commence on the 28th of this month.
EARL JOWITT: How long does the Recess go on for?
EARL FORTESCUE: I am afraid I cannot say.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made yesterday discharged, and Bill committed.

STOCK EXCHANGE CLERKS' PENSION FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter before five o'clock.