Sitting of 22 March 1955

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

    Mentally Defective and Handicapped Children
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made to date with his plans to provide additional accommodation for mentally retarded children in or near Aberdeen.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): The North-Eastern Regional Hospital Board proposes to develop Woodlands Home, Cults, as a regional centre for mentally defective children requiring institional care. The centre has already been expanded from 62 places to 120, and will ultimately provide about 250. There is no evidence that additional accommodation is needed in this area at present for mentally handicapped children whose need is for special educational treatment.
    Mr. Hughes: I am aware that that area is rich in accommodation for such children, but surely the Minister has some plans for extending the accommodation still further?
    Commander Galbraith: That will be done if required. At present, there does not appear to be any need.

    Spastic Children
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to extend and increase the accommodation for treatment of spastic people in the north-east of Scotland.
    Commander Galbraith: Children in the north-east of Scotland suffering from the more severe degrees of spastic disablement and requiring institutional care are
    1848
    admitted to the Woodlands Home, Cults. The accommodation at Woodlands has recently been doubled, and the regional board envisages its further extension later on. Educational provision for spastic school children is made in the physically handicapped section of the new Beech-wood School in Aberdeen.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what relation the accommodation bears to the actual number of spastic people awaiting accommodation?
    Commander Galbraith: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that at Beechwood School the total number of places available is 85 and that there are 63 pupils on the roll, so it would appear that there is room for more.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this is one of the finest schools of its kind in the whole country? He is not distinguishing between children who are handicapped and children who are not handicapped, so giving them the feeling that they are being educated in a normal way.
    Commander Galbraith
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the number of spastics in Scotland of school age; the extent and nature of the educational facilities provided for them; and the number that are benefiting from such facilities.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): An inquiry on the lines the hon. Member suggests is being conducted by the Scottish Council for the Care of Spastics, based on its experience at Westerlea School, and my right hon. Friend expects in the near future to discuss with it its draft report which will, he understands, include the results of local surveys. Special provision for spastic pupils is made at one residential school and one day school, but many other schools and classes for handicapped pupils also provide for children who are not too severely handicapped. About 440 pupils in all are benefiting from these facilities.
    Mr. Lawson: While thanking the Joint Under-Secretary for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that although

    1849
    this question deals only with children of school age, the children under school age are very important too?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

    Tuberculosis Patients (Staffed Beds)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the provision for beds for tubercular patients in Scotland; and how many were awaiting beds in 1952, 1953, 1954, and at the latest date.
    Commander Galbraith: The number of staffed beds available for the treatment of respiratory tuberculosis in Scotland has increased from 5,335 at the end of 1950 to 6,098 at the end of 1954. The number of patients awaiting admission has dropped from 2,303 in December, 1950, to 486 in January, 1955. I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these figures must give very great satisfaction to everyone, but, at the same time, can he say whether they indicate any change in his policy in regard to the provision of beds or their situation?
    Commander Galbraith: I shall be answering a Question later concerning the general situation with regard to tuberculosis. Perhaps my reply to the hon. Lady's supplementary question could wait until then.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Minister satisfied with the arrangement made between the different regions for taking patients from another region if surplus beds happen to be available in any region?
    Commander Galbraith: I understand that arrangements have been made for co-operation in that matter.
    Following are the details:

    Date

    Staffed beds available

    Waiting list

    December, 1950

    …

    5,335

    2,303

    December, 1951

    …

    5,636

    1,700

    December, 1952

    …

    5,773

    1,711

    December, 1953

    …

    5,974

    1,794

    December, 1954*

    …

    6,098

    515

    * Latest available figure for beds. Waiting list at end of January, 1955, was 486.

    Tuberculosis Patients (Swiss Sanatoria)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients from Scotland have been treated in sanatoria in Switzerland since the scheme began.
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the future of the Scottish Swiss sanatorium scheme.
    Commander Galbraith: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement in reply to these Questions at the end of Question Time.

    Employment, North Lanarkshire
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for future employment in North Lanarkshire as an alternative to those put forward to him by the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to her on 2nd December last.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that, in an intervention in a previous debate, he tried to say that he had a solution for this problem? Is he also aware that this is a very serious problem which receives great publicity in the Press, and that the "Glasgow Herald" had a first leader on it and the "Citizen" an important article? It he further aware that his former replies have been most unsatisfactory, and that my people are coming to the conclusion that this Government, including the Scottish Ministers, are quite ineffectual in bringing any hope to them?
    Mr. Speaker: Sir Robert Boothby.
    Miss Herbison: I wonder if I could have an answer to my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot get an answer from the Minister.
    Mr. Stewart: What I said to the hon. Lady was that these particular established factories—or whatever is the right word—did not form the only solution. Inever said that I had a solution. I can assure the hon. Lady that all the facts which she has put to us have been most

    1851
    carefully considered. We are doing many things, but not exactly the things which she suggests. I am sorry.

    Inshore Fishing Vessels
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the reconstruction of the inshore fishing fleets has proceeded to a point at which it is becoming difficult to man the modern craft which are now available; and, in view of the desirability of limiting the size of the fleets to a level at which they will give a good economic return, whether he will direct the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board to curtail the operation of the grant-and-loan scheme in respect of new construction, and to concentrate on engine replacement.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I have no evidence of serious difficulty in manning inshore fishing vessels or of a need to curtail the grant and loan scheme for the reason stated. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has, however, already announced that we propose to amend the scheme so as to put it beyond doubt that the White Fish Authority, in considering applications for grant, may have regard to the needs of the fisheries as well as to the individual merits of the applicant. A similar amendment of the Herring Grants Scheme is also proposed. Both the Authority and the Herring Industry Board already give grants freely for new engines in suitable cases.
    Sir R. Boothby: If the hon. Gentleman has any doubts about the difficulty of manning the fleets, will he pay a brief visit in the near future to Fraserburgh and Peterhead and have a look at the number of craft tied up in harbour in those two ports?
    Mr. Stewart: According to the facts which were given officially, only four boats have been held up recently for lack of crews. Those are all that have been brought to our notice. If my hon. Friend can give me further information, I shall be very glad to have it.

    Hospitals, Edinburgh (Staffed Beds)
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary, of State for Scotland the total number of beds available for patients in Edinburgh hospitals.
    Commander Galbraith: The total number of staffed beds in Edinburgh hospitals on 31st December, 1954, was 6,215.
    Mr. Pryde: In view of the fact that three weeks ago the Minister submitted some figures to me which showed that there are about 1¼ million people in and around the City of Edinburgh, does he not think it high time that more hospitals were built about Edinburgh, the Dalkeith area, for example?
    Commander Galbraith: It depends of course, on how many people there are requiring hospital accommodation.

    Atomic Power Stations
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the 12 projected atomic power stations are to be in Scotland; and how far it is proposed that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board shall participate.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: No decision has yet been reached on the location of any of these stations, but the Scottish electricity boards and the British Electricity Authority are in consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority on this and other matters.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nabarro.
    Mr. Nabarro: Question No. 17.
    Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) gave us no chance on Question No. 16. That is lousy.
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. I distinctly heard a Scottish Member opposite say that I was lousy.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Nabarro. Question No. 17.

    Hydro-Electricity (Capital Construction Plans)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to revise the new water-power capital construction plans, 1955–65, of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, in view of the onset of nuclear power generation of electricity and the recent White Paper on that subject.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend does not consider that the nuclear power programme requires any revision

    1853
    of the Board's plans so far submitted to him. The Board has told him, however, that it is considering the development of large-scale pumped storage schemes which may prove to be of increasing importance as the development of nuclear power proceeds.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the conventional hydro-electric scheme which has been built in the Highlands has an anticipated length of life of 100 years? In view of the fact that nuclear power stations will probably be in operation within ten years, is it not desirable to reconsider any plans for building further conventional hydro-electric stations?
    Mr. Stewart: These considerations are very much in our minds and in the minds of the authorities. I assure my hon. Friend, for reasons which I could well give him, that what we are doing now is very sound.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as modern knowledge goes, at present the cost of the raw material for hydro-electric power stations will always be cheaper than the nuclear material, which has to be imported? The raw material for a hydroelectric scheme comes from the skies.
    Sir D. Robertson: Can my hon. Friend say whether a single suitable site has been found so far in the United Kingdom for any one of these stations referred to in the White Paper?
    Mr. Stewart: I am not aware that the authorities have yet decided upon one.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the Minister say whether or not he has had any consultations with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board with regard to the part it may play in nuclear power development?
    Mr. Stewart: I am in very close touch with it in this matter. I assure the hon. Member that it is very much in hand.

    Peat
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Scottish peat was cut and used in 1954 in the United Kingdom for domestic fuel purposes; and, in view of the increased and increasing shortage of house coal in all
    1854
    parts of the country, what steps he is taking to increase the output and popularise the use of peat as domestic fuel.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I regret that information is not available as to the quantity of peat cut and used for domestic fuel. A Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Appleton has reviewed possible uses of peat, and it is doubtful whether it could be marketed at an economic price in most of our towns. The matter is, however, being kept under review.
    Mr. Nabarro: I suggest that my hon. Friend takes steps to get the information. [Hon. Members: "Question."] Is my hon. Friend aware of the high and rising price of coal for domestic purposes, and the fact that this country has had to import 4 million tons of coal this year, mostly for domestic use? Would it not be well worth while considering the development of Scottish peat resources, which would be very welcome in England, which is extremely short of domestic coal?
    Mr. Stewart: With respect, I suggest that my hon. Friend should read the Report of the Appleton Committee.

    Fire Service Expenditure (Grant)
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of expenditure on fire services is borne by Government grant.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The proportion of approved fire service expenditure borne by Government grant is 25 per cent.
    Mr. MacPherson: Will the hon. Gentleman say why the proportion is so low, compared with the ordinary local authority services, especially in view of the fact that this, in a very large measure, is a non-localised and almost a national service?
    Mr. Stewart: This was the proportion settled by the hon. Member's friends when they were in office, and we have merely maintained it. In all the circumstances, I think it is about right.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities regret the enthusiasm with which they demanded the return to their administration of the fire services at that period?

    Wildfowl, Aberlady Bay
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the decision of Sheriff Middleton on 29th November, 1954, in the case of a wildfowler charged with shooting wildfowl in Aberlady Bay, he will take steps to make possible the prohibition or restriction of shooting on the foreshore of any Scottish nature reserve.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: An appeal has been taken to the High Court against the Sheriffs decision. The court has reserved judgment, and it would, therefore, be improper for me to comment on the case.

    Magnetite Deposits, Tiree
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether steps have now been taken to explore the magnetite deposits in the island of Tiree; and with what results.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I understand that the deposits have been investigated by a commercial firm, which decided not to develop them.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the very extensive nature of these deposits—they are about 4 miles in length and stretch to a considerable depth—will the hon. Gentleman not try to pursue the matter further through the Scottish Council?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member was a member of the Mineral Development Committee. Its Report did bring out the fact that there were great difficulties here, and I gather that it is because of those difficulties—for example, the high percentage of phosphorus—that this firm did not feel it possible to do anything.
    Mr. Willis: Will the Minister try, through the research department in Glasgow, to get something done about this particular difficulty?

    Forth Purification Board
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Forth Purification Board has yet met; whether he has yet received recommendations; and what action he has taken.
    Commander Galbraith: The board's first meeting was on 7th March, when it decided to advertise for a river inspector. When this officer has made a survey of
    1856
    the rivers in the board's district, the board will frame and submit by-laws for my right hon. Friend's confirmation.

    Hospital Accommodation, North Ayrshire
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increased sums are to be made available to north Ayrshire for hospital building; and whether any project has yet been approved for accommodating the chronic aged sick.
    Commander Galbraith: The tentative programme of major works to be undertaken by the Western Regional Hospital Board as a result of the recently announced increase in capital allocations does not include any project in north Ayrshire. I understand that no proposal to build new accommodation for chronic aged sick in the area is at present under consideration.
    Mr. Ross: Surely the Joint Under-Secretary of State realises that the problem exists. We have had many speeches from Government benches expressing general sympathy in relation to this need; will not the Government do something about it?
    Commander Galbraith: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is great need for these matters to be considered continually, and for measures to be taken, but he will realise that there are other means than providing accommodation for the chronic sick. It is better for them to be cared for in their own homes as much as possible.
    Mr. Ross: It is all very well to care for them in their own homes, provided that the local authority is going on with the home-help scheme. In many areas this scheme is being cut down.

    Public Works Loans (Interest Rates)
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the protest from Newmilns Town Council about the effect of the increased rates of interest of the Public Works Loan Board; and what reply he has made.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has informed the town council that its protest has been noted, and that

    1857
    in so far as expenditure of local authorities in general is increased it will be reflected in the Exchequer equalisation grant in England and Wales and Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: All this means is that an increased burden will be borne, partly by ratepayers and partly by taxpayers. Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that any increase means an increase in the rates, and is a very serious matter in view of the present parlous situation of local authority finances?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this matter is causing great concern in Ayrshire, and that even the Burgh of Ayr is demanding that interest rates be reduced forthwith? Is he not aware that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) will be committing hara-kiri on the Minister's doorstep if this demand is not acceded to?

    Hospital and School Building
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the Government's proposals for discouraging inflationary spending will involve curtailing or slowing down the programme for additional hospitals, schools and other public developments recently announced.
    Commander Galbraith: I have no reason to think that the programmes to which the right hon. Gentleman refers will be affected.
    Mr. Woodburn: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consulted the local authorities to find out whether the increased interest rates will not have the effect of discouraging their enthusiasm?
    Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman referred to hospitals. I can assure him that there will be no diminution in the programme announced for them. With regard to schools, it is not expected that there will be any diminution in the programme.

    River Form (Tube)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards consideration by local authorities and others of the proposed under-water crossing of the Forth; how far it will be competent for the existing committee for the Forth Road Bridge
    1858
    to do so; and what otherwise is being done.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The local authorities represented on the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board accepted, on 18th March, the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation that, in consultation with the Secretary of State, he should appoint a group of independent experts to consider the proposal for a tube under the Forth and its merits in relation to a bridge. The necessary steps will be taken as soon as practicable. The present Joint Board was set up under a Provisional Order to build a bridge; and new powers would be needed for the construction of a tube.
    Mr. Woodburn: From Press reports it appears that the existing Board has no power to deal with the new proposition. Is the Minister going to take steps to see that no delay is occasioned by the Board—which must make the decision—being in its place when this committee has reported? What is causing delay in appointing the committee which is to carry out the scientific investigation?
    Mr. Stewart:
    There has been no avoidable delay. The authorities met on 18th March and asked that in the drawing up of the terms of reference they should be consulted, and that the terms should include a reference to roads. We are in the process of getting the terms of reference agreed, and as soon as that is done everything possible will be done to get the committee started.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether we can have a definite statement one way or the other about this tube before the General Election?
    Mr. Stewart: The Government have given, as the hon. Member knows, a firm undertaking that a start will be made during the next four years with a crossing of the Forth, either by bridge or by tube, and we stand firmly by that undertaking.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Is my hon. Friend prepared to give a date by which this new committee will be set up?
    Mr. Rankin: On 16th June, I suggest.
    Mr. Stewart: It should take very little time once we get agreement with the authorities.

    Doctors' Lists
    Mr. Brooman-Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average number of patients on doctors' lists in Scotland at February, 1955, or the latest available date, as compared with April, 1953, and December, 1951.
    Commander Galbraith: The average in January, 1955, was 1,976, compared with 2,016 in April, 1953, and 2,152 in January, 1952.
    Mr. Brooman-White: How does that position compare with the rate of progress south of the Border?
    Commander Galbraith: I could not say.

    Dental Courses (Conservative Work)
    Mr. Brooman-Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of dental courses devoted to preservative work in Scotland in 1954, as compared with 1951.
    Commander Galbraith: The number of courses of treatment, other than emergency extractions and the supply of dentures, increased from 603,000 in 1951 to 715,000 in 1954. The great majority of these courses were devoted to conservative work.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that these figures establish, especially after the reply to the previous Question, that there is now a very satisfactory rate of progress? Is he satisfied that the progress is likely to be maintained?
    Commander Galbraith: I sincerely hope so.

    Land Improvement Schemes
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give further details of the scheme by which, up to £25,000, is to be made available as special assistance to schemes of land improvement in the Scottish Islands.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Details of this scheme are now being worked out, following the Price Review, and my right hon. Friend hopes to publish them very shortly.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that these figures will be a mere drop in
    1860
    the ocean? Will he explain how it will be possible to help producers, for whom we understand the scheme was particularly designed?
    Mr. Stewart: The scheme was extended to the Islands to give support, particularly in relation to fertilisers and land reclamation. I hope it will do that.

    Hill Sheep (Special Payment)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a further statement in regard to the special payment for hill sheep; and to state whether the Government intend to give immediate assistance over the provision of fodder to hill farmers whose flocks have been gravely weakened by bad weather.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Arrangements to make the special payment of 5s. per ewe on hill flocks, on the same lines as hill sheep subsidy, are being treated as a matter of urgency. A scheme under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, has to be prepared and appropriate application forms will be distributed to all those who at present appear to be eligible as soon as these have been printed.
    Details of the arrangements will be published as soon as possible. I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no avoidable delay in making these payments. With regard to the latter part of his Question, my right hon. Friend regrets that this is not a matter in which he can offer specific assistance of the kind suggested.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that there has already been too much delay? I am informed that the application forms have not yet been printed. In the meantime, there is urgent need in the Highlands, especially in view of the recent snowstorms, for assistance in providing fodder for sheep. Will he try to bring in some scheme now to help the crofters concerned?
    Mr. Stewart: The forms have been sent to the printer and should be out before the end of next month. As soon as they are returned, subject to checking, payments will be made. As to the provision of fodder, the hon. Member knows that there is already a scheme for advancing credit on low terms to farmers and it is available for this purpose.
    Mr. Woodburn: If it is to take to the end of next month to get the forms out, would it not be wise to invite the co-operation of the Press—have the forms printed in the Press—and get them dealt with forthwith?
    Mr. Stewart: As the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, we have to be careful about that sort of thing. We must have the forms filled in and the figures checked, otherwise things could happen which would not be proper.
    Captain Duncan: Are the figures for the sheep on which subsidy is paid those of 4th December last, which are already in the hands of the Department? Further, are the sheep to be in age groups, as they used to be under the old hill sheep scheme?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not know about the age groups, but my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right about 4th December.

  HOUSING, SCOTLAND

    Programme
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the housing programme for Scotland, apart from Glasgow, is being overtaken; in how many burghs it is nearing completion; and if he will make a statement.
    Commander Galbraith: A total of 255,000 permanent and temporary houses have been built since the war, including 37,000 built in Glasgow. Of the 230 housing authorities in Scotland, 51 have no houses under construction and 28 have less than 10. These 79 authorities comprise five county councils and the town councils of 74 small burghs. While other considerations may apply in particular cases, the reduction of the waiting lists is the main reason why building has come to an end or been slowed down in most of these districts.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that a reduction of the waiting lists is an indication that no more houses are required? Is it not possible to have a survey of houses that are in the last stages of their life and are proving to be dangerous and in a state of decay?
    Commander Galbraith: I should have thought that to be a matter for the local
    1862
    authority concerned. The hon. Lady will know that, under the Act recently passed, my right hon. Friend has asked for information to be conveyed to him about the position, which involves a survey by August of this year.
    Mr. Manuel: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware, of course, that returns are sent to the Department of Health regularly by the local authorities. In Scotland, there has been no survey of the number of houses necessary and of the wastage which has taken place since 1943. Can the Minister give an estimate of what has been the wastage for the last 12 years?
    Commander Galbraith: No, Sir, I am not able to supply that information.

    Edinburgh
    Mr. Oswaldasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when the Edinburgh Corporation submitted a request to his Department for permission to demolish and rebuild houses in the Dumbiedykes area of the Holyrood ward of the city;
    (2) if he is aware of the shortage of houses in the City of Edinburgh; and whether he is now in a position to grant permission to the corporation to proceed with their plans to demolish slum property and to rebuild houses in the centre of the city.
    Commander Galbraith: The only proposals submitted by the corporation for the demolition and rebuilding of houses in the centre of the city are those relating to the Dumbiedykes area contained in the corporation's development plan. These proposals were submitted by way of an amendment to the plan on 14th January, 1954; and, as the plan is still under consideration, the corporation asked, on 17th February, 1955, that the proposals be separately considered. My right hon. Friend hopes to give his decision on the proposal very shortly.
    Mr. Oswald: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that there is a considerable waste of time between when the application is made by the corporation and when the decision is actually made? There is a long period between the two. Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman further aware that the conditions in the area are appalling in

    1863
    consequence of the inclement weather, and cannot something be done to speed this matter up?
    Commander Galbraith: No, Sir. The development plan for the City of Edinburgh is a very important matter, and calls for very great consideration. This proposal in regard to the Dumbiedykes area was only put in apart from the plan in February this year.
    Mr. Pryde: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Edinburgh Corporation is as far behind with its housing programme as the Coal Board is with its deliveries?
    Commander Galbraith: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that.
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from Edinburgh Corporation for slum clearance and rebuilding schemes in Leith.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend confirmed a Clearance Order in 1952, under which the demolition of 88 unfit houses is now proceeding at Burns Street, Leith. He understands that the corporation is giving preliminary consideration to the clearance of other small central areas in Leith, but no specific proposals have yet been submitted to him.
    Mr. Hoy: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman help the carrying out of this work by approaching the Secretary of State for War with a view to getting the War Department to release Leith Fort for housing purposes and so accelerate any scheme for slum clearance?
    Commander Galbraith: I understand that that matter is before the Edinburgh Corporation.

    Property, Glasgow (Survey)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a wider survey of the slum areas of Glasgow.
    Commander Galbraith: The Corporation of Glasgow carried out a comprehensive survey of all properties in the city for the purposes of its development plan which my right hon. Friend approved last year, and he does not think any further survey is required meantime.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of that reply, will the Joint Under-Secretary ask the Secretary of State to go to Glasgow and view the problem of the slum areas for himself? Is he aware that, if the Secretary of State does so, he will take a more human attitude to the problem of Cumbernauld than he is at present showing?
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has already visited Glasgow and looked at the slum areas in the city and the conditions which exist there, but this is a matter more for the Corporation of the City of Glasgow than for the Secretary of State.

  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

    Leaving Certificate
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which educational bodies he is consulting in connection with the proposed leaving certificate for 16-year-old pupils.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend is consulting the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Association of Headmasters of Senior Secondary Schools, the Association of Headmistresses (Scottish Branch), the Association of Directors of Education, the Association of County Councils, and the Association of Councils of Counties of Cities. The Scottish Universities Entrance Board will also be consulted.
    Mr. Thomson: Will the Minister bear in mind the importance of getting a special leaving certificate adapted to the needs of those who are likely to leave school at the age of 16; and will he also say whether he is treating this matter as one of urgency, in view of the great contribution that it would make towards reducing the wastage in our schools?
    Mr. Stewart: We share the hon. Member's view about the contribution which this step could make, and we are doing it as quickly as we can, but we must consult other people.

    Teachers (Recruitment Scheme)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recruits to the teaching profession have been

    1865
    obtained under the special recruitment scheme; how many are, or will be, honours graduates and of these how many are, or will be science and mathematics graduates; how many are, or will be, ordinary graduates; and how many in all categories are men.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: One thousand three hundred and thirty-one recruits were obtained in the period up to 14th March. Four hundred and eighty-eight of these are now certificated teachers, and the rest are still pursuing their studies; 155 are, or will be, honours graduates, 45 in science and 18 in mathematics, and 549 are, or will be, ordinary graduates. Six hundred and twenty-eight of the 1,331 recruits are men.
    Miss Herbison: Since these figures show that there has been some success with this scheme, will the Minister ensure that every step is taken to try to publicise it even further, in the hope of attracting more?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree. The hon. Lady has already received my compliments on the scheme. Recruits are coming in at the rate of about 40 a month, of whom about 20 are being accepted. We are doing all that we can to keep it going.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will not the hon. Gentleman do something to deprecate the sort of propaganda which seeks to underestimate the value of these recruits and to suggest that these people are not fully qualified?
    Mr. Stewart: I have done what I can, by broadcasts and otherwise, to bring the right hon. Gentleman's idea to the notice of the public. It is an excellent scheme—there is no possible dilution in it—and it is of great service to Scottish education.

    Temporary Premises, Penicuik
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of school children in the town of Penicuik, Midlothian, who are being taught in temporary premises.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: One primary class of 43 pupils is at present being taught in premises out with the school.
    Mr. Pryde: I understand that two halls are being used in Penicuik. In view of that fact, would it not have been far better if the Government had concentrated upon a balanced building programme,
    1866
    instead of trying to build 300,000 houses when they know they have to patch up prefabricated houses built in 1945 in order to get another five years of life out of them?
    Mr. Stewart: It is not my duty to talk about housing, but the hon. Member should know that work upon the extension of Penicuik junior secondary school is going ahead. It is hoped that the first part of the extension will be completed in time to be able to dispense with these halls next session.

    Size of Classes
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average class attendance register in elementary, junior secondary, and senior secondary schools, respectively, in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, respectively; and what action he intends, in co-operation with the local authorities, to reduce the size of classes.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Separate figures for the three types of school are not available, but in Glasgow in January, 1955, the average size of classes in primary departments was 39·9; in the first three years of secondary courses of all types 29·6; and in the fourth and subsequent years of secondary courses 22. The comparable figures for classes in Lanarkshire at the end of December, 1954, were 39·3, 29·5 and 21·2. Reductions in the sizes of classes must depend mainly on the success of the efforts which are being made, in cooperation with the education authorities, to recruit more teachers and speed up the provision of new schools.
    Mr. Carmichael: What is the Minister doing to try to ease the problem of overcrowding? The figure he gave does not give the true picture. In some of the primary schools classes there are as many as 60 pupils. With the best will in the world, nobody can teach children in such large classes. What is the Minister doing, in association with local authorities, to ease the problem?
    Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree that these large classes make it almost impossible to teach properly. We are doing everything we can, in association with the authorities, such as using temporary buildings, trying to get more teachers and, under the latest circular, adding to old school buildings. Of course, it is taking

    1867
    time, but we are in a peculiarly difficult position because of the bulge in the birth rate, a factor which we must face for some years yet.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the Minister tell us whether these statistics were taken just before the two leaving dates, in January and August?
    Mr. Stewart: I am not able to answer that question, but the figures were given to us by the two local authorities, and they cover the dates which I have mentioned in my answer.

    University Students (Grants)
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now review the arrangements for grants to students at universities and other comparable institutions with a view in particular to satisfying himself to what extent the present system of assessment of contributions by parents in middle income groups, when considered in conjunction with Income Tax, involves a double handicap.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: In the present review of the Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations, under which such grants are made, the point which the hon. Member has mentioned will be kept in mind.
    Mr. Macpherson: Will my hon. Friend also keep in mind the fact that many of these people in the middle income groups have fixed commitments which they cannot easily vary? Will he further bear in mind the comparison between these groups and those who have capital to supplement, as compared with those who have no capital to supplement, the university education of their children?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

    New School Places
    Mr. Brooman-Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of new school places provided by local authorities in grant-aided and approved schools during 1954.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Thirty-four thousand three hundred and seventy.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Do not these figures give the answer to any attempt made by the Opposition to allege that the
    1868
    Government are lagging in the school building programme? Though the problem of overcrowding is very great, has not remarkable progress been made in overcoming it, and do not these figures constitute something like an all-time record?
    Miss Herbison: Is not the Minister aware that the figures given are completely wrong, and that in each year since the present Government came to power capital investment in the provision of new school places has been cut?
    Mr. Stewart: That is not correct. The House may like to know that the figure for the year which I have just quoted is 27 per cent. higher than for the previous year and nearly double the figure for 1950.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton (Memorial)
    Sir R. Clarkeasked the Minister of Works when the memorial to Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, which was removed from Parliament Square, will be re-erected and where.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): I am considering this question but I have not reached a decision.
    Sir R. Clarke: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Parliament Square Act stipulated that memorials which were removed should be restored, and that on at least three occasions his predecessors have said that this monument to the work of Buxton, Wilberforce and others who abolished slavery in the British Empire would be restored, and a place found for it in Victoria Gardens?
    Mr. Birch: I realise that the feelings of the Anti-Slavery Society are very strong; so are the feelings of the Royal Fine Art Commission.

    Government Offices, London
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Works the total number of Government offices in the area bounded by a line drawn from Charing Cross to Piccadilly Circus, thence down Piccadilly and Knightsbridge to Sloane Street and Sloane Square, thence to

    1869
    Victoria Station passing along to Vauxhall Bridge, and in the area south of the river bounded by a line drawn from Vauxhall Bridge, the Oval Station and gasometers, Elephant and Castle, New Kent Road, Tower Bridge Road and thence to Tower Bridge, respectively; the estimated total number of civil servants employed therein; and the estimated rent paid out of public funds, together with the estimated amount of rental per head.
    Mr. Birch: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: But why should the civil servants dig themselves in in the heart of Mayfair and Belgravia and the most expensive sites in London, like Bond Street and Carlton House Terrace? Could not they file their forms equally well on less expensive sites south of the River and be equally close to the House of Commons? How about the gasometers at the Oval? Could they not be put underground at the Elephant and Castle?
    Mr. Birch: For myself I must plead "not guilty," because my own office is south of the river, but my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the seat of Government is north of the river.
    Following is the reply:
    There are 117 offices in the charge of my Department in the area specified north of the Thames and 11 in the area south of the River. These figures exclude Post Office buildings. Thirty-one thousand staff are employed in the offices on the north side and 2,000 on the south. Excluding Crown buildings, the estimated rent paid out of public funds is £1,015,000 and £36,000 per annum respectively; this corresponds to a rental per head of £53 and £29 respectively. This comparison is however somewhat misleading, as the majority of the staff in rented buildings south of the river are housed in one building which is held on lease at a pre-war rental.

    Traffic, Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Works by what bodies, outside Government service, he has been advised that traffic would be impeded by allowing vehicles going from Kensington High Street to Bayswater to enter Kensington Gardens by Queen's Gate and proceed by a cut just to the north of Coalbrookdale Gate along the west carriageway in Hyde Park.
    Mr. Birch: None, Sir.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether this road is not, in fact, a right of way? In reply to a Question which I asked last week about the filter, he said that he was advised that it was bad for traffic, but can he say how a filter to the left can possibly be bad for traffic? If, as I suspect, it cannot be bad for traffic, will he consult the Minister of Transport and the Metropolitan Police with a view to opening this passage?
    Mr. Birch: I am advised that it is not a right of way. Before giving my earlier answer, I very naturally consulted the Ministry of Transport and the police.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (UPPER WAITING HALL MURALS)
  Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to restore the pictures in the Upper Waiting Hall of the Palace of Westminster.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): My right hon. Friend has referred this problem to the Advisory Committee on Works of Art in the House of Commons, and understands that they are opposed to the restoration of the murals.
  Captain Duncan: Can my hon. Friend tell us a little more about these pictures? When were they painted, who painted them, were they ever finished and when were they covered? Is it true that they were covered because Queen Victoria objected to them?
  Mr. Bevins: No. They were painted by eight different artists many years ago, and they are in a very bad condition.

  RESEARCH (RADIOACTIVITY)
  Dr. Broughtonasked the Minister of Works what scientific research is being undertaken into the spread of radioactive matter by fishes from regions of the sea polluted by nuclear explosions.
  Mr. Birch: Scientific research into the possibility of the spread of radioactive matter by fishes has been undertaken since 1949 by the Ministry of Agriculture

  1871
  and Fisheries and by the Ministry of Supply and the Atomic Energy Authority. We have also benefited from an account of the researches made by Japanese scientists in areas near the location of recent American test explosions. These researches show there is no danger of fish spreading radioactivity from areas of the sea where a nuclear explosion has been made.
  Dr. Broughton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that concern about this problem has been expressed in the United States of America, and that research is being undertaken by American scientists? Could he ask that the results of their findings should be passed to scientists in this country?
  Mr. Birch: We are, as I said, carrying out our own researches. In all these matters of research into the effects of radioactivity we are in the closest touch with the Americans.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that radioactive fish were found hundreds of miles from the region of the last bomb explosion?
  Mr. Birch: That may be so in regard to light contamination, but that does not mean that the fish remain radioactive.

  WORLD DISARMAMENT
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to appoint a Minister of Cabinet rank whose sole duty will be to study and implement ways and means of bringing about total world disarmament.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): No, Sir. I do not think that it would be a good plan in this country. Policy in such matters is decided by the Cabinet and carried out by the Foreign Secretary. I am satisfied with the present arrangement whereby a Minister of State in the Foreign Office, whose responsibilities include all United Nations affairs, represents Her Majesty's Government on the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the President of the United States has made an analogous appointment for a somewhat similar purpose, and that in making it he said that he did so
  1872
  on the ground that the London talks on disarmament resulted in no progress and no clear crystalisation of thinking? Is not this a pungent and terrible criticism of the present Government anda reason why an appointment of this kind should be made?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think it is meant to be a serious criticism of the present Government. In any case, we consider that the methods that we are pursuing are suitable to our conditions and our Constitution.
  Mr. Shinwell: In any event, will the right hon. Gentleman have any further opportunities of appointing Ministers of Cabinet rank, or any other kind of Minister? May I ask him whether the report in the "Manchester Guardian" that he is being pushed out by his Tory colleagues is true?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman really must not be led away by all the chatter in the Press. He makes a mistake to indicate that he is one of those most prominently misled.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am delighted with his reply?
  Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider setting up in the Foreign Office a special department under the Minister of State which would be responsible for making this study of the disarmament problem—apart altogether from the disarmament conference which is at present sitting—on the analogy of the appointment in 1936 of the present Foreign Secretary as Minister for League of Nations Affairs?
  The Prime Minister: I think that Question might be put upon the Paper.
  Mr. Strachey: While appreciating that the Prime Minister may be satisfied with the work of the Minister of State in this matter, may I ask whether he is aware that the House is far from satisfied with the statement of the Minister of State yesterday that even the first step in nuclear disarmament by banning nuclear tests cannot be taken because it would give a sense of false security in this country?
  The Prime Minister: We had better wait until the Sub-Committee has finished

  1873
  its labours, and then undoubtedly a situation will arise if a complete deadlock is reached.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Masonasked the Prime Minister if he will produce a White Paper, similar to the United States Atomic Energy Commission's report, outlining our findings from fission and thermonuclear tests that have taken place under water, on land, and in the air.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a White Paper containing all available scientific information on the effects of nuclear tests and explosions on human health and human welfare.
  The Prime Minister: By a curious coincidence, we are to have a debate on this very subject immediately after Questions, and it would only be respectful to the House to see what happens then before taking decisions about publishing White Papers.
  Mr. Mason: Is the Prime Minister not aware that he really is displaying a most complacent and apathetic attitude to this very serious matter? Is he not further aware that the publication of the report of the United States Atomic Energy Commission has caused great concern among the people of this nation in view of the knowledge of the radioactivity released into the atmosphere in its various and almost unlimited forms? Further, is he not aware that, in view of the Parliamentary time taken in discussing this matter, both in Questions and debate, this document is most urgently required, and will he not reconsider the matter?
  The Prime Minister: I hope the hon. Member will not have endangered his chances of being called in the ensuing debate.
  Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that what some of us are seeking are not merely statements from Ministers in the course of a debate but a factual report from British scientists, which we have not yet had? Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that we shall have these reports in the course of this debate?
  The Prime Minister: I really must not anticipate a matter which lies so entirely in the discretion of the House and is also governed by the arrangements made for the conduct of the debate.

  SERVICES ESTIMATES (PROCEDURE)
  Mr. Wiggasked the Prime Minister whether he will review the undertaking given on 4th November, 1947, by the then Leader of the House, on the procedure to be followed on the consideration of the Service Estimates, with a view to amending this procedure.
  The Prime Minister: Any changes in our procedure should only be made after careful consideration by the House as a whole. If there is a general feeling in the House that this procedure should be changed, it would seem to be a matter which could be discussed through the usual channels; but, of course, as this particularly affects private Members, such discussions could only be of an exploratory nature.
  Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, then, to take steps to bring the usual channels into consultation with back-bench Members, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would join this discussion himself in the latter capacity?
  The Prime Minister: I should be quite ready to further the promotion of discussions through the usual channels. Ido not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to go further than that.

  YALTA CONFERENCE (PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS)
  Wing Commander Hulbertasked the Prime Minister what requests seeking the approval of Her Majesty's Government were received from the United States Government before they published the Yalta Papers on 16th March; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he now proposes to publish the full report of the Yalta Conference, in view of the fact that it is being published by the Government of the United States of America.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister what length of notice was given by the United States Government in respect of the publication of their account of the Yalta conversations before publishing it.
  The Prime Minister: I dealt with this matter on Thursday last week at some length. I may further explain that the Foreign Office was informed last summer of the United States Government's wish to publish collections of documents relating to the Malta, Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, and that the galleys of the Yalta book have been in our possession since December. It is not, of course, my duty or that of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to read in detail such a vast mass of material about the past. The material is Departmentally studied, and any points requiring executive decision are referred to Ministers. I was consulted in a few points of detail.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with my complete agreement, sent a reply deprecating on general grounds detailed records of important international discussions being published so soon after the event. On 12th January, 1955, the Secretary of State told Mr. Dulles that whilst he did not suggest that publication should be abandoned, he thought it most undesirable at present. On 11th March the United States Government informed us that they had decided not to publish. But on 15th March we were told that publication could not be resisted any longer. Twenty-four hours later it occurred.
  It has now to be decided whether we should publish our own reports of the plenary conferences and Foreign Secretary meetings of the Yalta Conference. These documents closely resemble the United States account and most of the differences appear to arise from the inevitable variations in the records of the meetings. I am having the two versions carefully examined to see whether a separate publication is necessary. Personally, it seems to me that we come out of it very well; but that in no way removes our conviction that the publication was untimely.
  Wing Commander Hulbert: Will my right hon. Friend again emphasise to the State Department the undesirability of
  1876
  publishing these documents on a unilateral basis? May I also ask him if he will again emphatically deny the remarks attributed to him with regard to our gallant Polish Allies?
  The Prime Minister: I have already done that. I certainly do not remember making any such remark, and if so, it must have been completely out of its context. But anyone who cares to read the documents which are now becoming more and more available in this country can see how again and again I fought for the interests and rights of Poland, both at Yalta and Potsdam.
  Mr. Attlee: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is undesirable that within quite a short space of time general discussions of this nature should be published in extenso in which far too great an importance may be given to casual remarks? In view of the indications that there may be publication of subsequent occasions, such as the Potsdam meeting, would it not be possible to have some kind of agreement as to what statement should be issued, because when ex parte accounts of these conferences are issued, it is bound to cause a good deal of international tension?
  The Prime Minister: I think what has occurred may have been influenced by accidental circumstances, and it should not be judged as a definite policy on the part of any other country. We know, as a matter of fact, that in the United States Yalta is a party matter, and sometimes people go quite a long way about party matters, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Certainly I think that what has occurred, and the publicity which has attended it, will undoubtedly lead to much closer concert and consideration in the future.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these documents include a report of a tripartite dinner at which a toast was given by the Prime Minister to the proletarian masses of the world, and that after this dinner there was vigorous disagreement between the Foreign Secretary and himself? Does he not think it would be a good thing to have a full verbatim report of that remarkable dinner?
  The Prime Minister: I have not made a complete search into our archives myself,

  1877
  but I do not imagine that we took or kept any record of private and casual conversations after a dinner. On general principles, it is a practice to which I should find myself opposed.
  With regard to there having been a serious difference between the Foreign Secretary and myself on the question of representation, there was no such difference. We may have looked at it from two different angles but we agreed entirely as to what should be done, as we shall always do.
  Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any representations to the United States Government with a view to securing agreement about reports in future dealing with any past matters?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. They know our views. We are in very close and intimate friendly touch with the United States.

TUBERCULOSIS PATIENTS, SCOTLAND (SWISS SANATORIA)
Commander Galbraith: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement in reply to Questions Nos. 9 and 24.
When this scheme began in June, 1951, the total Scottish waiting list for hospital treatment for respiratory tuberculosis, which had reached a peak of over 3,000 in June, 1949, had stood at over 2,000 for five years. Over 900 patients have gone to Switzerland under the scheme, which has thus provided a valuable supplement to our hospital resources at a time when they have been under extreme pressure.
During the last 12 months the total waiting list has fallen steeply from just under 2,000 to around 500. This is mainly the result of the greater effectiveness of modern methods of treatment and the more efficient use of the beds and other resources in Scotland, matters on which the doctors and the various authorities concerned are to be congratulated. We are thus now able to make prompt and suitable provision in Scotland for a much larger proportion of those patients who need the kind of care that the Swiss scheme offers, and chest physicians are finding it extremely difficult to fill the beds in Switzerland available to us. Patients for the scheme are now coming forward
1878
from four areas only—Glasgow, Renfrewshire, Dunbartonshire and Stirlingshire.
In consequence of this, it is clear that we cannot usefully send any more patients to the Sanatorium Wolfgang, where we have had the use of 70 beds. This decision is being conveyed to the authorities at the sanatorium, to whom and to whose staff our thanks and the thanks of Scottish patients are due for their co-operation. My right hon. Friend contemplates that most, if not all, of the patients now in that sanatorium will remain there until the time when they would have come back to Scotland in the ordinary course.
For the present we are continuing to send patients to the Sanatorium du Mont Blanc, where we have the use of 120 beds, which will be sufficient to accommodate all the patients coming forward under the scheme.
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. We are listening to a statement of great importance to the people of Scotland, and I hope we shall have quietness in the rest of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I could hear quite well, but I ask hon. Members to moderate their conversation.
Commander Galbraith: But the House will appreciate that the maintenance of arrangements for treatment in Switzerland is not an end in itself, and if present trends continue the time may not be far distant when it will be possible, without prejudice to the treatment of Scottish patients, to reduce still further the scale of these arrangements and eventually to terminate them altogether.
Miss Herbison: I am sure that the whole of Scotland will be delighted to hear the figures which the Minister has given, but is he aware that there will be great disappointment in Scotland at the announcement about giving up the use of one of the sanatoria which we have been using, particularly as 400 patients are on the waiting list? Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give some reconsideration to this decision, and not give up the use of that sanatorium until the waiting list is very much smaller.
Commander Galbraith: I thought the hon. Lady would appreciate that there will be great rejoicing about the fact that the waiting list is now so low that we can find other accommodation for the patients.
Major Anstruther-Gray: Arising out of the original reply, while thanking the Minister for the generally satisfactory figures, may I ask him whether we can take it that in special cases, in which treatment in Switzerland is particularly desirable, that treatment will be open to patients, in spite of what he said?
Commander Galbraith: My hon. and gallant Friend will recollect that I informed the House that we were retaining certain beds in Switzerland—in fact, 120.
Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is an even more important lesson to be drawn from this—that the prompt steps taken when it was discovered that the incidence of Scottish tuberculosis was so bad have evidently yielded results? Will this encourage the Government to continue with the provision of special housing so as to arrange segregation of the patients and enable the incidence of the disease to be reduced?
Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend does everything he can in that direction.
Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I have just returned from visiting the Mont Blanc sanatorium? Is he aware that his announcement will cause great dismay amongst the 120 patients who are receiving excellent treatment there? Is he aware that treatment at the Mont Blanc sanatorium includes thorax operations
1880
and that we have had many questions about the long waiting period experienced in Scotland by patients for chest operations, whereas the operations can be done easily at the Belvedere private sanatorium attached to the Mont Blanc sanatorium?
Commander Galbraith: I do not think the hon. Lady heard what I said. I said that we are continuing to send patients to the Sanatorium du Mont Blanc.
Miss Herbison: On a point of order. I wish to give notice that, since this matter is of such importance to Scotland, I will raise it on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
James Idwal Jones, Esquire, for Wrexham.
BILL PRESENTED
  BRITISH MUSEUM
  Bill to empower the Trustees of the British Museum to lend for the purposes of research objects comprised in the collections of the Natural History Departments of the British Museum and to destroy objects so comprised which have become useless by reason of infestation or physical deterioration, presented by Mr. H. Brooke; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 64.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Committee Tomorrow.

NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS (GENETIC EFFECTS)
3.40 p.m.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to move,
That this House urges upon the Government the need to give further consideration to the long-term and remote effects of continuing nuclear explosions by the Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, and expresses its fears as to the dangers facing humanity as a result of continuing radioactive contamination of the world's atmosphere, particularly to future generations; and asks that the suggestion of the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition be carried out and a conference of scientists from the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and France, be held to advise on the danger facing mankind.
I am informed that this will be the first occasion in this House on which a woman Member has opened a debate and another woman Member will wind up for the Opposition—
Miss Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Lady allow me to correct her, as she is in error? We had an all-women debate, in which she took part, in the days of the Coalition Government, so she is out-of-date.
Dr. Summerskill: I am very pleased to accept the correction. I certainly recall that debate, but even the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) will agree that this occasion is unprecedented because never have women—and, I anticipate, so many women—spoken on such an important matter.
The question of women speaking is of minor importance in terms of history compared with the subject matter of the Motion I am moving. In my opinion, this problem transcends party, creed, or nation. It is, in fact, a question which involves the whole human race. I very much regret that the Government have not thought fit to accept this Motion fully and generously, instead of putting down an Amendment which can only be described as evasive.
1882
I shall try this afternoon not to use any complicated terminology which still the most erudite cannot understand. There are those who say that man should have left science alone and the world would have been a better and happier place. I believe that that is a completely defeatist attitude which might well led to the decay of human intelligence, which almost came to pass in the Middle Ages. The rational and moral approach to scientific discovery is to control its evil effects and direct it into constructive channels. Unfortunately, today the world seems hypnotised by the possibilities of the prostitution of this new force of nuclear energy rather than absorbed by its tremendous potentialities for good. The tragedy today is that man knows how to control the atom bomb, but does not know how to control himself. Perhaps Freud was right after all—there is a death wish in the heart of our civilisation; mankind is prepared to work destruction in the world and destroy himself in the process.
Today, we are concerned with discussing the most modern war weapon, a topic which women generally are only too ready to cede to men. I do not say this to provoke hon. Gentlemen opposite, but war has been a male pastime since the dawn of time and women, against their strongest instinct—that of procreation—have always been drawn into the undertow. They have acquiesced reluctantly because they have always been assured that the things they hold dearest in life, their homes and their families, were at stake. Now man has invented a lethal weapon the properties of which offer a threat to women's creative powers.
If this is proved conclusively—and the evidence so far advanced fills us with the gravest misgivings—that instinctive aversion to fighting which prompts every normal woman may find world-wide expression. Scientific investigation in this field must necessarily be limited owing to lack of human material. In this case, we must be very thankful that the number of people who have been exposed to radioactive emanations from these bombs is limited.
While that, fortunately, is the case, we cannot afford to disregard the findings and conclusions of many eminent scientists. I anticipate that perhaps some hon. Members opposite will try to counter the statements of scientists which I propose

1883
to quote, but I would remind those who are prepared to dismiss, as having no validity, the reports which have already been made, that the atomic age is so very new and the approach to this matter is of such a tentative character that only the most irresponsible will ignore certain recent scientific announcements.
At this stage it is as well to keep in mind other scientific discoveries which have failed to gain immediate acceptance. Only very recently Sir Alexander Fleming died. It will be recalled that the discovery of penicillin resulted from the accidental growth of a mould on a culture left by an open window. Theories which he deduced from that fact were not readily accepted and it took many years for the world to accept Sir Alexander's proposition. It will also be recalled that the writings of Pasteur on bacteriology were ridiculed and that Jenner's experiments in vaccination were scoffed at.
I have no intention of making sensational statements about the genetic effects of experiments with the hydrogen bomb. I simply want to convince the House and the Government that there is a prima facie case for an examination of the whole problem by scientists of the highest repute. Recently, when the Prime Minister was questioned in the House on the atmospheric effects of the hydrogen bomb, he repeated a statement of Mr. Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of the United States, that the amount of radiation is no greater than that to which a patient having an X-ray of the chest is exposed.
But the Prime Minister overlooked one very important scientific fact. The effect of radiation in the atmosphere is cumulative. It is wrong to talk of "permissible levels of radioactivity" because uranium and radium are found all over the earth and any addition to the already existing store of radiation may be responsible for an increase in the incidence of some disease. Indeed, some scientists are of the opinion that here may be the key to the development of cancerous growth, a malignant disease which, so far, has baffled research workers.
When the first atom bomb was dropped it was estimated that a permanent change in the level of the earth's radioactivity would be detectable after a hundred or so similar explosions. Later, it was esti-
1884
mated that several thousands would be necessary, but the number now needed is very much smaller. To date, there have been 65 nuclear explosions—50 by the Americans, 12 by the Russians and three by the British. Scientists are now expressing the opinion that explosions of nuclear weapons cannot continue without the danger of serious damage to health. If the House will be patient with me, I will quote the statements of scientists who command the highest respect not only in their own countries but throughout the world.
The Professor of Biophysics in the Medical School of Osaka University, in Japan, has reported, after examining people exposed to the Bikini test explosion of March, 1954, that in the most seriously injured fishermen the number of leucocytes—those are the white blood corpuscles—marrow cells and blood platelets, fell to one-tenth of the normal number, and that their blood forming function was seriously impaired. Those men had to be given frequent blood transfusions to save their lives. One died a few months later.
Besides the very serious injury to the blood forming organs, the reproductive organs were seriously affected. The professor himself examined those fishermen, and he found that in some of them the number of sperms per cubic milimetre was from 100to 700 against a normal number of from 50,000 to 100,000. Not only was there a decrease in the number, but various abnormal types of sperms were seen. Some of these fishermen, therefore, may have been rendered sterile for life. The professor says that, even if the number of sperms should recover, there is a danger that abnormal children may be born subsequently. Evidence goes to show—and this is not disputed—that a pregnant woman who is exposed to only a moderate dose of radiation runs the risk of aborting or giving birth to a still-born child.
The Federation of American Scientists has now suggested that the United Nations should appoint a commission to explore the dangers that lie in continued nuclear explosions. The Federation, which was formed at the end of the war to study the relations of science to public affairs, is composed of 2,000 scientists and engineers, many of whom have worked on both atomic and hydrogen bombs.

1885
In 1945, when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, we were shocked by the stories of the blast and the powerful gamma rays and momentarily fierce heat, but we were told little about the fall-out, that is, the settling of radioactive particles which have been blown thousands of miles. The reason for that was that the single explosion could be dismissed, but the danger which lurks in the accumulation of those particles is very serious, for they may remain active for years—indeed, it has been said, for decades.
Mr. Strauss, who, the House will recall, is the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of the United States, says in his report that the fall-out from the hydrogen bomb can contaminate an area of 7,000 square miles with lethally radioactive material. But there is still more to come. Dr. Edward Teller, who was the genius of the hydrogen bomb, tells us that the so-called "super super bomb," with a power more than 20,000 times the power of the first atomic bomb, will not be the end.
I ask the House to forgive me while I mention something which is rather technical, but of great importance. It is said that the radiostrontiums from hydrogen explosions can fall out at great distances and later can be eaten, through being in vegetables, and so on, by humans, and by grazing animals which, in turn, provide food for humans. Bone has a special attraction for radiostrontiums, and the human foetus is highly sensitive to radiation. It is argued, therefore, that the foetus may be destroyed through milk obtained from cattle which have grazed on infected grass. Mr. Strauss, in his report, seeks to be reassuring, but he cannot prophesy what would happen in a hydrogen bomb war, when abortion and stillbirths might become almost universal.
Hon. Members who have listened to me so attentively may say, "Yes, but what do English scientists say about this?" They may feel, perhaps, that foreign scientists are a little suspect. They may feel, perhaps, that foreign scientists have a political slant to their pronouncements and writings. Whom can I quote? Who commands greater respect than Dr. Edgar Adrian, of the Order of Merit, the Nobel Prize winner, one of Britain's finest and most famous scientists? Dr. Adrian says that a hydrogen bomb war may
1886
"lead to a degree of radioactivity which no one can tolerate or escape and thus end the human race."
In the light of that, nothing I have said previously can be regarded as an overstatement. Those are very strong words.
I quote two more scientists. There is Dr. Sturtevant, of the California Institute of Technology, who has been Professor of Genetics since 1928. He warns that any high energy radiation causes mutations in germ cells, and he says that the effects are permanent. They are passed on in genes to the descendants of those exposed to radiation. These may include both physical deformities and mental aberrations.
Dr. Stern, of the same university, a zoologist, would not admit the risks to be so great, and in his utterances takes a middle course, but he admits that:
"The production of a number of detrimental or fatal disease incidents may be expected …"
to follow a thermonuclear test explosion—not a thermonuclear war, but a thermonuclear test explosion. By now, he estimates, everyone in the world harbours in his or her body small amounts of radioactivity from past hydrogen bomb tests.
Can we afford to ignore this volume of evidence, only a small part of which I have quoted, and the inherent dangers of atomic radiation to the human race? I urge the Government to give this matter priority and to accept the Motion. Most of us in this House have already lived a fair share of our expectation of life, and the manner of our dying is of no more than academic interest, but it is the moral duty of all older people to seek to ensure for the young a world at least as pleasant as the one we have known.
3.59 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): This is a strange and difficult subject to debate. Although I may find some points to take up in the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), and although on some of them I shall disagree with her, I think the House will be grateful to her for the way she has approached this matter. There is no question but that this problem and all the related problems offer a personal challenge to us all, a challenge we cannot

1887
shuffle off on to our leaders, or on to our leader writers, or on to the scientists.
My task is to give as clear a picture as I can to the House of Commons and the country, after taking the best possible advice that is available to me. Perhaps I can say on that question of advice that the Medical Research Council have had committees considering this subject for eight or ten years. They are not Government committees. Represented on them are leading authorities from the universities, from the M.R.C. research staff, and from the Atomic Energy Authorities.
What I say from this Bòx is, of course, the responsibility of the Government. That is always so, but I can also say that I am confident that what I say this afternoon, particularly about the effects of the test explosions on this country, is not in conflict with their views. I hope, too, that what I have to say and, for that matter, what the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West had to say will be read as a whole and not in isolated sentences which, on a subject of this nature, might sometimes give an incomplete impression.
The right hon. Lady emphasised the long-term nature of this problem. It is one that, in the nature of things, will not be finally resolved for generations and perhaps for centuries. Research is a matter to which I should like to return. I propose, at the end of my speech, to move the Government Amendment which is on the Order Paper. Frankly, it has not been placed there in an attempt to be evasive in the least. It has been placed there, for reasons which I will explain, because it indicates what we generally believe is the best approach to the problem. I am not too much concerned to argue about the different weights to be attached to Motions and Amendments on the Order Paper. We are all deeply concerned in this matter and it is wholly right that we should debate it. In view of what I have said about the necessary discussions that have taken place and the advice that I wish to give to the House, perhaps right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if, from time to time in what I have to say, I follow my notes more closely than I usually do.
1888
How is it that this anxiety, to which expression is given in the Motion, has arisen on the long-term and remote effects of continuing nuclear explosions? That concern that increased radioactivity of the atmosphere can have a long-term effect on mankind's hereditary constitution comes from the fact thtat radioactivity of all kinds causes an increase in the mutation rate in all animals and plants in which it has been tested. Without attempting to put the matter into over-scientific terms, we are concerned here with the structure of genes which fix the characteristics that are transmitted from parents to offspring. Particular genes, for example, may determine the colour of a child's eyes and hair or, in some cases, produce a physical or mental defect. Now, these genes have the property of mutating, that is, changing in such a way as to produce a new characteristic, and all such mutations, as the right hon. Lady correctly said, are permanent, that is to say, are carried on through subsequent generations.
The effect of exposing animals to radiation is to increase the rate at which these mutations occur. Sometimes what are called recessive genes may not show a harmful effect until mating takes place, it may be many generations later, between two people each of whom carries the same recessive mutated genes. The belief that such exposure causes genetic damage to human beings is, of course, based on evidence that it does so in other forms of life. Observations have been made on plants, insects and mice and a very large, though by no means sufficient, body of knowledge is being built up. It seems probable that mutations are produced with a frequency that is proportional to the dose of radiation but, also, that there is no threshold level below which genetic changes do not take place. This was the subject of a Question recently by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross).
Dr. Barnett Stross: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the majority of cases any changes that occur are for the worse for mankind and only rarely for the better?
Mr. Macleod: That is so. Most mutations are certainly harmful.
There is nothing new whatever in human beings being exposed to radio-

1889
activity. We and our ancestors and all our evolutionary predecessors have for millions of years been exposed to radioactivity which comes to us perhaps from outerspace. I am told that each of us absorbs natural radiation which is thought to be about 0·1 roentgen each year. I am sure that the House knows that roentgen is the unit of dose of X-ray and gamma rays. A dose of 0·1 roentgen is what, quite apart from any explosions, we would any way normally absorb. Other countries may have slightly different levels of radiation. Indeed, the levels are different in cities as the result of the burning of coal and the use of building materials, and so on.
The pronouncement on the effect of test explosions which has caused a good deal of comment and some controversy is that of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. I should like to quote in full paragraph 40 of its Report, which states:
"In general, the total amount of radiation received by residents of the United States from all nuclear detonations to date, including the Russian and British tests and all of our own tests in the United States and the Pacific, has been about one-tenth if one roentgen. This is only about one-hundredth of the average radiation exposure inevitably received from natural causes by a person during his or her reproductive lifetime. It is about the same as the exposure received from one chest X-ray."
That last sentence has already given rise to a good deal of controversy but, whatever its merits, it has no relevance at all to the case which I am putting here, because I pass on straight away to tell the House what, so I am informed, is the effect on the people of this country.
Our calculations—and we derive these calculations and our information in this matter from the monitoring measurements taken by the Atomic Energy Authority—show that here the figure would be about one-third of the American figure, and this includes all the future radiation results of all the explosions that have taken place so far. Even this figure of ·03 roentgen is artificially high for two reasons which, as far as I can see, have not come at all into discussions in the Press but which, obviously, are of importance.
I am told that this figure is calculated on the assumption that a man stands outside in the open for 24 hours a day for about 50 years, and that, of course, is improbable. I am also told that to the extent that he is indoors or under cover
1890
the figure, again, will be greatly reduced. It also assumes that none of the activity weathers away from the surface of the ground, which, of course, would happen. Therefore, I am advised that the effective average dose that would have been received by somebody in this country from all the bombs that have been exploded so far is a very great deal less than ·03 roentgen.
Mr. John Baird: Is it not a fact that these figures are based purely on assumptions and have no scientific basis? Is it not the case that in America radiation is at a higher level in some places than in others? Therefore, is it not ridiculous to take a figure for America as a whole?
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member has perhaps missed the point. I am discussing only the British figures. There may well be great variants in the American figures. I have not had any discussions with American scientists to enable me to make any comment on that.
At the present levels of irradiation it seems improbable that we have anything more than an interesting basic scientific problem, and a situation which must be watched very carefully indeed. That is the best advice that I can give to the House.
The real question, of course, which I will try to answer is this: what level is permissible? What is the threshold of radioactivity, which, if we are not there now, we may reach in the future, beyond which man's genetic constitution might stand at risk? That is the main worry. The dose of radiation which has been agreed by an international commission as a maximum permissible level for workers on radioisotopes or for radiologists is 0·3 roentgen per week or, taking working hours and holidays into account, about 15 roentgen a year.
That is enormously greater, of course, than any of the figures that we have been discussing, but it is also fair to point out that where very large numbers of the community have to be considered the number of genes at risk is enormously increased, and, therefore, the number of matings that might conceivably be harmful is also very considerably increased.
I have tried to find a figure, which I could give to the House, above the level

1891
of natural activity at which danger would begin. I found that the more I went into the subject the more the scientists disagreed. Estimates of the dose of radiation over a generation that is likely to double the spontaneous mutation rate have varied from three roentgen to 300 roentgen. None of us can adjudicate on these matters, and it is not for me to try to do so, but I am told that a figure of 50 roentgen over 25 years is as good a guess as we can make.
The increase in the United States of America has been only a tiny fraction of this, and in this country it has been very much smaller. Perhaps this will bring a little comfort to us and a sense of balance as we study these problems. Indeed, on the lighter side, I might mention that this morning, when discussing some of these matters with a professor of international standing in this field, he told me that personally he was a good deal more worried about crossing the road than about the present levels of irradiation.
I should now like to turn to the question of research, about which some Questions were asked and replied to yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. Research is going on all over the world. Most of it is concerned with plants and lower animals and even with single cells. The great difficulty here, as the right hon. Lady knows, is that we can only carry out experiments on species with a shorter life span and a much more rapid development than man.
The United States Atomic Casualty Commission has been studying the population in the vicinity of atomic explosions during the last war. There is evidence that some conditions have a higher incidence among these populations, but no evidence of genetic damage which is statistically significant has so far been observed. There again—and I am sorry to have to make so many qualifications, but we have to study these things for years and perhaps generations before we can be really confident in any of the pronouncements that we can make—there have also been studies of individuals who are exposed to increased amounts of radiation. These are people such as radiologists and patients who, for therapeutic reasons, have had to have considerable doses of radia-
1892
tion as treatment. Here again, and making the same proviso, the studies of these groups have not to date shown any evidence of genetic damage.
In this country, the work is almost entirely under the auspices of the Medical Research Council.
Dr. Stross: Has not the right hon. Gentleman been advised of the work done to discover the effect on women in America where such doses have been given in the treatment of menorrhagia and the result on children born later? There has been a very considerable increase in the incidence of children born with congenital heart disease, congenital dislocation of the hip and club foot.
Mr. Macleod: All I can say is that what I have said is on very strict advice, and I think that some of thereferences which the hon. Member is making are perhaps to those who were in the vicinity of a bomb explosion.
Dr. Stross: No.
Mr. Macleod: That is a very different matter from the whole population problem which I am discussing. If the hon. Member is referring to the question of the whole population, I have no evidence that such is the case.
Dr. Stross: I was referring to the treatment given therapeutically to cases of men and women in the United States in order to combat menorrhagia, without harming their fecundity power. I was describing what happened to children later born from such women.
Mr. Macleod: I have no particular knowledge of the matters which the hon. Member has put before me.
On the question of research, a great deal of research goes on in the Medical Research Council's research unit at Harwell and there are other institutions for research at Hammersmith Hospital and Leeds. The work is also being supported in many university departments. It is not possible to extract precisely the amount that is spent on genetic studies from that spent on other work because all studies on radiation could give a lead to an answer on all allied genetic problems. The Council's expenditure for the support of work in its own establishments in all aspects of the effects of radiation is in the provisional Estimates for 1955–56—£208,000.

1893
I am also authorised to say, on behalf of the Government, that if the Medical Research Council, after examining its research programme in the light of this new commitment, report that an increase in its total expenditure is essential, this will have the Chancellor's favourable consideration. Perhaps I may put two or three conclusions to the House in the form of a summary.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of research, would he say whether any medical or other research is being conducted as to the possibility of counteracting the harmful genetic effects of radioactivity?
Mr. Macleod: That is a matter of which I have no particular knowledge. I will write to the hon. Member or, if he will put a Question on the Order Paper, I will give him the best information that I can get.
These are the conclusions which I should now like to put to the House. First, radiation produces genetic effects and the radioactivity of the planet has slightly increased as a result of nuclear bomb explosions. Secondly, I am afraid that our present knowledge is insufficient to fix at all precisely the level of radioactivity above which genetic damage would significantly affect the well-being of populations. Thirdly, research in genetic changes is inevitably slow. Finally, and most important of all, it is most unlikely that the increase of radioactivity which has occurred up to the present will have any appreciable genetic effect.
I turn now to the Motion and the Amendment. We can argue about the words, but at least we know we are not arguing about what we want to do. We seek peace now, for our time, for our children's time and for ever. But the question is how best we can achieve it. We seek a world free from fear.
Before I recommend the Government's Amendment to the House as the one for which we should like to invite support, I think I should examine two proposals. First of all, there is the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition for a scientific conference; and, secondly, the suggestion, which has been ventilated in another place on a number of occasions, that we should seek to widen the agenda of the international conference which is
1894
to be held in Geneva in August. Let me make it quite clear that we rule out no proposal, whatever its nature may be, if we believe that it will lead us towards peace. All that I would do is indicate some of my doubts about these suggestions.
The Government have very carefully considered the suggestion made by the Leader of the Oppxosition, which is included in the Motion now before the House, but even after very careful study I am not quite clear what he had in mind. On 14th March he asked
"Would it not be worth while having an authoritative statement made by scientists drawn from both sides of the Iron Curtain?"
Then he said:
"… I think it would be an enormous advantage to the world if we could have an agree statement made by scientists. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 956–7.]
We would all welcome such a statement if it came from genuinely independent scientists, but I find it difficult to accept that the right hon. Gentleman really believes that scientists from behind the Iron Curtain would come to such a conference without their briefs, without their set speeches and in a truly independent state of mind. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I should like to believe it. [Hon. Members: "Try it."] It is a very irresponsible thing to say "Try it," but if it is tried, and then the scientists come with their set speeches for propaganda purposes, infinitely more harm than good is done.
Mr. James Griffiths: Even on the basis of the two speeches we have heard this afternoon, it is obvious that we are confronted with a terrifying challenge to mankind. In view of that, is there any justification in refusing to organise a conference which would bring out that knowledge?
Mr. Macleod: As I said earlier, I will rule out nothing provided it is practical, but I do not believe that this is the best of approaches.
Then there is the international conference of scientists to be held at Geneva in August. The proposal for this came from the United States in April, 1954, when Admiral Strauss said he hoped it would be devoted
"to the exploration of the benign and peaceful uses of atomic energy."

1895
I am sure that it will be a most useful conference. The agenda has been agreed. It includes papers on the biological and medical aspects of radiation as regards injury protection and genetic effects, but papers under this head will deal with the broad problem of radiation hazards, whatever the source of radiation may be. Frankly, it does not seem wise that we should seek to widen the agenda of this conference to include specifically the study of genetic effects of radiation from nuclear explosions—
Mr. Ellis Smith: We never suggested that.
Mr. Macleod:—because to do so would be bound to detract in some degree from the all important question of its devotion to the peaceful uses of atomic power.
Therefore, I tell the House that, on the whole, we do not agree with the specific proposals which I have mentioned; with that of the Leader of the Opposition, because we do not think it is the right approach and we simply do not believe it would work; or with that of additions to the Geneva conference, because these would largely alter its whole character.
It must be common ground between us that there is only one final answer to this problem, and that is a comprehensive scheme of disarmament. Reference was made to this yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, when he talked about reaching
"agreement upon a balanced and comprehensive disarmament programme which would include the abolition of all nuclear weapons and thus eliminate such test explosions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 1737.]
We believe that, in the end, that is the best hope of peace and for the future of mankind. That is why we think it right to put it in the forefront of the Amendment we are commending to the House, and to proclaim again that it remains our first objective.
Mr. John Strachey: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain to us just what the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs meant yesterday when he said that the first steps towards international agreement on the termination of further test explosions was undesirable because it would create a feeling of false security in this country? That puzzled all of us very much indeed.
Mr. Macleod: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will expect me to interpret what another Minister was saying yesterday, but, having read Hansard very carefully, I do not find it anything like as obscure as the right hon. Gentleman would suggest.
Mr. Strachey: But what does it mean? Why does it give a feeling of false security?
Mr. Macleod: For one reason at any rate, that if we achieve agreement—I do not want to be drawn into this, because this is outside my field, but I am putting one point of view—on the abolition of tests without, at the same time, securing effective disarmament, all that would happen would be that a country could go on manufacturing weapons of existing design or developing them without trial explosions, and that, clearly, seems to be undesirable.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? The Foreign Secretary said the other day that it is clear that tests can now take place without there being any bang and, therefore, without any knowledge of the matter being given to the outside world. In view of that, how are we to find out?
Mr. Macleod: I am sorry, but I do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's point. As a matter of fact, it was not said as he has put it, and that matter was cleared up in the defence debate in the House of Lords recently and in this House at Question Time yesterday.
I should like to invite the House to support Her Majesty's Government in seeking the extension of the methods of collaboration which already exist. In medical knowledge and information, these contacts are already reasonably full and satisfying and we hope to see them go forward as well in other spheres. In the particular matter which we have been discussing today our contacts at present are with the United States of America and Canada.
We have been discussing today, as the right hon. Lady said, one of the gravest subjects that can possibly be brought before the House. Neither of us has made any attempt to bring party points into it, although we may have disagreed about some of the interpretations that were put

1897
before us, I think sometimes that nuclear power is a modern version of the story in the second chapter of Genesis
"of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,"
because there has never been a power which, at the same time, held such possibilities of doom and such bright possibilities of hope. They talk foolishness who say that we can unlearn the dread knowledge that has come to mankind. We cannot put this particular genie back into the bottle and drop it into the depths of the sea again. For good or evil this knowledge is with us and it may be that, as in the Biblical story, in spite of the dread warnings, mankind will go on and
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth …"
There is one thing I should like to point to in this very strange paradox about which I have talked, and which comes all the time into one's discussion on nuclear power. Let me give one example from my own particular work. In the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on 14th March, to which I have already referred, he mentioned the power of cobalt. Here, this afternoon, we are discussing the dangers of radiation on healthy tissues which may take place a hundred years hence, yet only a few miles from here, at this very moment, men are using powers of radiation infinitely more powerful than any we have known before, derived from cobalt but this time harnessed to attack and destroy diseased tissues. These invisible fingers of the cobalt ray go searching into the body of the patient to seek out, to treat and to destroy cancers that were utterly beyond our reach until a short time ago.
So, once again, we have this paradox of good and evil, of healing and destruction, and it is the faith of us all that we will choose wisely in this matter. So far as we are concerned, we accept an absolute responsibility on the part of the Government to tell the House and the country all the facts that can properly be disclosed to them. We have done that in the White Paper, and we have done that in the defence debates, and with all the uncertainties there are—and I have not avoided them—I have tried to do that this afternoon. I believe that the Amendment I am putting before the House is the right way forward, and I therefore beg to move, to leave out from
1898
"House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"pending a satisfactory result of the intensive efforts which are being made to achieve a comprehensive scheme of disarmament, welcomes Her Majesty's Government's decision to continue and expand research in this country on the medical and biological aspects of nuclear energy, and to collaborate by every practical means with those countries with whom arrangements already exist and with such others as can usefully be brought into consultation."
4.33 p.m.
Mrs. Harriet Slater: While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I could not help thinking that he was putting the case for the Motion of the Opposition. The Minister said that we were confronted with an interesting scientific problem which must be watched carefully, and it is just because of this that the Opposition put down their Motion asking that the scientists of the world be called together to watch the problem and to give of their present knowledge.

I regretted that while the Minister was speaking in such a way he should have had to revert to the old fear that we must not do anything with which the Russians were concerned. Why should we be afraid to bring in all the scientists, whether they are behind the Iron Curtain or not? This problem affects mankind so desperately that we cannot afford to leave anyone out of any of the consultations which must take place. The Minister also claimed that the Government put the question of disarmament in the forefront of their Amendment. It is because we feel that disarmament is so important that we seek to give the evidence which will show that disarmament must take place in the immediate future.
About a fortnight ago some of us went to listen to Professor Hadow giving a simple but nevertheless comprehensive statement of what the biologists are considering in relation to nuclear explosions. As we came away from that meeting, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) and I both said that it was time someone did something about this question. Because of that, I want to speak this afternoon on behalf of the women not only of this country but of the world.
I am convinced from meetings which I have attended during the last few weeks that the threat of the hydrogen bomb,

1899
the threat from present experiments, has stirred the men and women of this country much more than anything else has done within the last few years. We in this House have been made aware through our debates, through research and through the reports we have read, of the evil consequences resulting from the experiments and explosions which have taken place and which will probably take place in the future. And do not let us ignore the fact that even yesterday we were told that we must try out our own hydrogen bomb.
It is easy to talk and express the hope that commonsense will prevail. It is also easy to hope that the nations will join in some common agreement for the control of such deadly weapons, but what the men and women in the street are asking today is, "What are you in the House of Commons going to do about it?" They are tired of talk. They want to see us, as responsible people, taking definite action.
I do not pretend to have scientific knowledge of this subject, although I have read the available material and have listened to talks on the subject. However, I do pretend to have an understanding of the sanctity of human life, because I have spent my life either in a school or working amongst womenfolk in this country. I know that the ordinary working-class woman wants to bear healthy children, wants to give to this nation the best that is possible for future generations. The fear which the biologists and the scientists have expressed during the last few months has gradually seeped through until our people have the same fears about the future of the world.
What are the reasons which make it necessary for practical action to be taken now? Menfolk usually think that women are not practical, but they are. It is our job to think in terms of organising and of doing practical work. The very life of a woman makes her seek practical action, and makes it natural for her to be concerned about the life which she may bring into the world. Mothers give their energy and often their lives and their health in bringing children into the world, and it is urgent that we in this House should be able to say that we are doing everything possible to prevent the waste
1900
of that life and energy which they are ready to give.
We know the immediate effects of blast and burns. When we read that 80,000 people were killed by the atom bomb in Japan, we were shocked and dismayed. We all know also that the present hydrogen bomb is 750,000 times more powerful than anything dropped on Germany in the last war. In face of the danger even from blast and burns, how can we be complacent about the killing of people on such a mass scale? Yet even the knowledge available at present shows it to be more tolerable to be killed by such explosions and warfare than to suffer the after-effects.
Not only is the ordinary man and woman perturbed, but the scientists and the biologists and the doctors are also seriously concerned. They have been strengthened in their views by the results of the experiments made in March last year. As my right hon. Friend said, they have told us that radioactive particles can be as widespread as 160 miles, and that contamination over an area 140 miles long and 20 miles wide will be such as to affect seriously the lives of all the people within that area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has produced a very telling pamphlet on the effects of those radioactive particles. Radiation sickness is seen five or six years after the atom bomb was dropped on Japan. I watched a child, who was a very good friend of mine, die from the results of leukemia, and I cannot tolerate seeing masses of people having to suffer and possibly die as a result of radiation sickness.
But it is perhaps the genetic effects of these experiments which cause us most concern. The biologists, the chemists and the doctors already know, through experiments which have taken place, the effects on the human race. We are told that they may not be immediate. Last night I listened to Japanese doctors who spoke to a small group of us and told us that the effects may be experienced as far ahead as 50, 100 or even 1,000 years. What we do in the world today is determining almost the kind of children who may be born 50, 100 or 1,000 years hence. How can we sit still and do nothing about it? The Japanese doctors told us last night that fishermen had been examined after the

1901
last experiment and that in seven cases it was well established that the genes were nil and that the positive danger to them had been of a colossal character.
We have a proud record over the last few years in this country of how much we have done in public health work. I remember that in the pre-war days we were all rightly indignant when we heard the large figures of infantile mortality in our cities, and everywhere we pushed on with our ante-natal and post-natal work. We stepped up the medical services in our schools, and all of us today boast about the standard of the health of our children. When we visit schools we like to see that the children are bigger and bonnier and healthier and more able to meet the things which they have to face in life. Yet if we take no action now we may be undoing almost at once all the work which we have done over the past 50 or 75 years.
All mothers hope to bear healthy children. It is true that when a handicapped child is born a mother lavishes on it much more love and care and attention than she would lavish on a normal, healthy child. But those who have seen and met mothers who have children in institutions know that at the back of their minds is the constant, nagging question, "What will happen to him when I have gone?" All the time the mother is afraid that some day she will no longer be there and that others may not care for her child.
Are we to say to the mothers of today and the mothers of the future that they must face the prospect of bearing mutilated, handicapped children? It is no solution to say that these effects may be no more dangerous than chest X-rays, for doctors who spend their time doing X-ray work, particularly in connection with industrial chest diseases, will tell us that they do not expose their patients unnecessarily to too much X-ray because of the damage which they know may result.
We are faced with the fact that an H-bomb may kill 100,000 people and that the genetic effects resulting from it may be spread over a thousand years. I ask all hon. Members whether we can go to the next election, whenever it may be—and we all try to get the women voters on our side—and be happy when facing the women if we are unable to tell them that an attempt has been made to gather together the information which is avail-
1902
able and which may save them from the possibility of bearing handicapped children.
We may be accused of being fear-mongers, but let me remind hon. Members that it was the knowledge and the fear of disease in the early 19th Century which started our public health departments. It was as a result of the dangers and of large-scale fever that we began to do something about sanitation in this country and that we introduced our first Public Health Act. The Minister of Health is here because fear plus knowledge in the beginning has made it possible for the Ministry of Health to be doing the valuable work which it does today.
Therefore, do not let us dismiss this as fear-mongering. Let us face what has happened in the past and what may happen in the future. Politics are always more difficult to resolve than science, perhaps, and that is why the Opposition have put down this Motion asking for a conference of scientists of the great Powers. We did that because, in the first place, we know that the great scientists, the biologists, the chemists and the doctors will, if they are given the opportunity, co-ordinate the knowledge which is already available, no matter in which country they may live, and we know that they will be able to assimilate that knowledge and present it to the Governments of the world.
Like all great artists, the scientists and the doctors do not look upon such problems as this as national problems. They look upon this as an international problem; their first loyalty is to mankind as a whole and not to any country. From such a conference we should hope to get the detailed knowledge which results from research and experiments.
We feel that the knowledge which is already available is so overwhelming as to make it an urgent necessity to act now, to urge Governments to formulate a policy and to do something about stopping further nuclear explosions, even those for experimental purposes. Men of the stature of the great scientists of the world step outside the narrow boundaries of their countries and feel that they must not only receive from what is already known but must give to the world as a whole the knowledge which they have acquired.
Mr. Raymond Gower: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I should like to put a question to her. These are desperate and important issues. She made a statement about scientists stepping outside the boundaries of their countries, but we have had ample evidence in the last two years of Soviet scientists framing a special biological theory to suit the whims of the political rulers of their country. We have had ample evidence of it. What evidence has the hon. Lady for suggesting that these scientists could come to such a conference unattached in any way?
Mrs. Slater: My evidence is that already the Russians have agreed to be one of the 84 nations to send scientists to Geneva in August to discuss problems about which the Minister spoke. We need no other evidence. What we do need is a greater amount of trust in human nature and a greater amount of faith than we apparently have at present.
I feel that if such a conference were called we should enable the scientists of the world not only to bring to politics the information and the knowledge which may save mankind in the future, but to lay the foundations of a new political and ethical approach to the problems confronting the world today. That, too, is important, and we cannot with a shrug dismiss it as idealism. It is something which we cannot afford to ignore. All of us benefit from technical advances, no matter whether in the home or the factory. We have now reached a stage in this age when in social and political problems we must of necessity take note of what science has done for us and also must have a scientific approach.
In this matter Britain has a special responsibility. After all, we are already linked with large numbers of people through our Colonies and Dominions so that we have a responsibility not only to ourselves as a nation, but to the people who form part of our great Commonwealth. We have had many debates about trying to abolish squalor, ignorance, disease and poverty from the underdeveloped countries of the world. What use is it for us to do that if we miss the chance now to do something which will enable these people to live in the future and to produce the children who will be able to benefit from any efforts which we
1904
are now making in their under-developed countries?
The people of our country are still looked upon as humanitarians. We are still considered to be forward-looking people. We urge the Government to look at this problem again during the debate tonight so that Britain may show the initiative in calling together the scientists who may make it possible to give a lead to our statesmen.
I said at the beginning of my speech that I did not pretend to be able to make a scientific and clever speech, but I said that I spoke for the women of the world. The day of platitudes on this topic has gone. I very respectfully suggest that the Government's Amendment is another form of platitude and that it does not do anything of a definite character right now. We cannot afford indefinitely to continue talking platitudes. We cannot afford to wait until there is a gradual change of heart by the peoples and statesmen and nations.
On these benches we were proud of our leader when he suggested that such a conference should be called, and we submit this Motion to the Government so that this country may again be the leader in giving to the future not only safety from the H-bomb, but safety from the experiments which are taking place; so that we can safeguard mankind and give a chance to our women and to our children of taking the best and the fullest opportunity which a new life might give to them.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. Walter Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove): The House this afternoon is attempting to act as a Council of State, I think with considerable success. The medical problems which have been raised are, of course, very great indeed. I would not have ventured to intervene in the debate, in which the feminine aspect has been so strongly stressed, were it not for the fact that I am a certified midwife. I have a certain acquaintance with some aspects of this problem both from the medical and scientific viewpoints, and I will make such contribution as I can this afternoon from those angles.
It appears that we are discussing two problems which, to some extent, are becoming a little mixed. We are discussing the horror and peril of atomic warfare and we are discussing the danger of

1905
experimenting. The horror and danger of atomic warfare cannot be exaggerated. The half has not been said even this afternoon. To double, redouble and surredouble the horrors that have been mentioned would bring one nowhere within striking distance of the result of atomic warfare. We have talked, for instance, of the human race; but atomic warfare envisages the obliteration of animal life, not to say plant life. It is not just humanity with which we will finish. We would finish with a world swept clean of life. None of us need have any hesitation in seeking with all our might to avert an end such as that, to our planet with all its beauty, and the wonderful forms of life which have been evolved upon it.
Several speeches have been directed towards the danger of atomic warfare. That danger is conceded and admitted by all. There is only one way in which one can deal with dangers from atomic warfare and that is by making moves against warfare; and that is the practical step proposed by Her Majesty's Government in the first line of their Amendment. Further suggestions which have been urged upon the Government are ways of making these dangers widely known. I could not agree more. I am sure that everything that is done to make these dangers more widely known will be of the greatest possible advantage. But the way in which they can be made known is by taking steps such as we are taking this afternoon, by widely publishing the knowledge which we and other countries have, and by ascertaining more knowledge. All these things Her Majesty's Government propose to do. I do not call that sitting idly by. I call that being practical. That is practical; not merely calling a number of others into a circle to emphasise what is already known.
Our knowledge will in no way be reinforced by the knowledge that the Russian scientists confirm it. The Russian scientists' knowledge will in no way be strengthened by confirmation from us. These things are known. They are scientific truths. They are not a matter of argument. What we have to do is to go ahead on the basis of the knowledge which we already have. There may be something to be said for a pronouncement by a powerful neutral. I think that
1906
the suggestion of Bertrand Russell was a good one. He made it on the radio and modified it in discussion. I call his suggestion to the attention of the House and particularly to the attention of the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater).
Bertrand Russell began with the idea of a conference of scientists. That was what he put out over the radio. In further discussion he departed from that, because of the difficulties and delays and the crosscurrents which would arise. That was still Bertrand Russell. He came down finally on the suggestion which Mr. Nehru has today referred to, that Sweden and India should speak. He even came to the suggestion, which, again, I think very practical, that India alone might speak, on the very ground that a conference would delay matters. That is an argument against the Motion. Bertrand Russell, starting from the conception of a conference, has moved away to the responsibility of individual nations. Should not that weigh very seriously with us this afternoon? I think it should.
This morning I read with some dismay the statement of Pandit Nehru that he thought the time inopportune for India to engage on such an examination. I still think that it would be of advantage. I think that the nationals of a single Power could make such an examination with much less danger of conflict between each other than the nationals of many Powers. India's refusal is not for lack of knowledge; for Pandit Nehru went on to the tremendous and significant statement that by the end of next year India would have two atomic reactors in operation. India has geneticists, physicists, and biologists of high standing whom I should have thought capable of pronouncing on this matter equally as well as the scientists of any country in the world.
I come back to the thesis which I am presenting, that it is better for the scientific nationals of a single country to have a conference upon this question than the nationals of many countries.
Mr. Ellis Smith: The motives behind the Motion are similar to those advanced at a meeting which the right hon. Gentleman and I attended. Since that meeting there have been important pronouncements which have encouraged us. There is also complete unanimity about the

1907
forthcoming conference at Geneva. Surely we should be encouraged by that unanimity to make proposals of the kind made by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Elliot: Were that so, I think it would have appealed to the powerful and impartial mind of Bertrand Russell. But the effect on his mind was otherwise. I think the hon. Member will confirm me in that. The mind of Bertrand Russell moved away from the idea of a conference towards the responsibility of single nations making national pronouncements.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: I think it would be true to say that Bertrand Russell was dealing with the effect of hydrogen bomb warfare. The Motion deals with experiments. Would the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the two? My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) quoted one of Britain's foremost scientists as saying what could emanate from experiments. That is what we have to face now, and not the results of an actual hydrogen bomb conflict.
Mr. Elliot: If I may, I will come to that point. I hope that I have not been misleading the House, for I started by saying that I thought there were two arguments being advanced in parallel, the argument about warfare and the argument about experiments, and that there was a danger of getting the two mixed up. Is hall do my best not to mix them up myself, but one tends to stray over the dividing line. I think that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has been misled. His right hon. Friend quoted Edgar Adrian, who said that this may well end the human race. It was not of experiments that he was speaking. It was of nuclear warfare.
But I must not take up too much time, for though I am speaking as an "honorary woman," I must remember that I am only an "honorary woman." The danger of atomic warfare cannot be over-emphasised, but I think that the danger of experiments can; and especially the problem of one particular aspect of experiments. I think that the genetic danger of experiments has undoubtedly been exaggerated. The genetic danger, this particular aspect, seizing popular attention to the exclusion of other aspects,
1908
is a real danger and we must preserve a sense of proportion.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health devoted himself closely and narrowly to this point regarding the effects of test explosions and whether they were, in fact, likely to have a seriously injurious effect upon the health of the world's inhabitants in general. He came to the conclusion that, in the face of present available knowledge, this was not so. That is his contribution and, as near as I can make out, it is the contribution of the scientists of this country to this particular aspect of the problem.
I think that a White Paper on the subject might well be brought out, embodying, and perhaps extending, the facts which the Minister gave this afternoon. Obviously, a speech by a Minister, important and authoritative as it is, is not so easily examined as a White Paper and, as the right hon. Gentleman said himself, can only be a quotation from scientists, instead of their ipsissima verba. It might well be a good thing to have the position set out categorically, including the facts and figures as he gave them. One fact, for example, which I had not realised before was that these figures relate to the absorption of atomic radiation over a long period; not merely a week or a day, but possibly a period of years. I think that very important.
The effects—mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross)—of heavy radiation upon women suffering from menorrhagia and the subsequent evil effects on children were the result of a concentration and direction of radiation towards not merely the general system, but the genital organs, such as would certainly find no parallel in anything except a close proximity to an atomic explosion itself, which brings me back to the point about warfare.
We need not bother too much about the effect of general atomic war on the genes of the human race a thousand years hence; because anyone close to an atomic explosion would be suffering from something much more important and decisive. The immediate cells most likely to suffer in any case are the important blood forming cells. The damage will be much more immediate to the bone marrow and its blood forming cells than the late effect of radiation on the reproductive cells.

1909
I think that the responsibility of each nation is very great to make known in its own territory, and as far outside as possible, the evidence on which it has formed conclusions about the results of atomic war and from atomic tests so far made. All the more so because I consider that the real peril before us has not been mentioned in any debate. It is the peril resulting from the enormous diffusion of this knowledge which is about to take place, for what is called the peaceful uses of atomic energy. There is where the danger lies.
I have said this before and I say it again, that this discovery is comparable with the discovery of fire. We cannot talk about the peaceful or the warlike power of fire, nor can we so discuss atomic energy. The application of it lies in man's brain and not in a machine or equipment. We cannot construct machines or equipment which will be available only for the peaceful use of atomic energy. Nuclear reactors produce plutonium, one of the sources of this enormous modern power, useful for war as well as for peace. They can be diverted or converted to warlike as well as to peaceful ends. And this knowledge is going to be spread all over the world.
The White Paper entitled "A Programme of Nuclear Power" terrifies me. In page 9 of that White Paper it is stated:
"The Government … have agreed to make available to the Agency"—
the International Atomic Energy Agency—
"20 kilograms of fissile material."
Twenty kilograms of fissile material are to be handed out to Powers widespread about the world. Imagine the dangers involved. There cannot be anything more important than that.
Dr. H. Morgan: Do not ramble.
Mr. Elliot: The White Paper continues:
"Other countries will also be helped to build experimental and development reactors which are an essential preliminary to the building of commercial reactors. We are already helping in this way a number of Commonwealth and European countries."
That seems to me to be the real, vast problem, from which a concentration on the narrow subject brought forward specifically in this Motion might divert
1910
attention. These are the subjects which will have to receive our main attention in the future. Pandit Nehru is making use of this new power, but is refusing to take part in the suggested discussion on its consequences.
Many countries will take part in the use of this energy. We are already using it and other nations are soon going to take part—small nations and irresponsible nations as well. This will require not only a programme of disarmament, but, I think, a programme of police. There will need to be some strong authority if the world is to have handed out to it the tremendous power envisaged in this White Paper.
I believe that the responsibility for the control of strength will, as always, lie with the strong, and that this will not be done by resolutions. This is the sort of problem to which the House and the country will require to devote attention in the future. There will have to be organised some controlling force for these tremendous powers which are being let loose, and which are to be pressed upon the nations of the world for commercial uses.
Therefore, I think that it would be a mistake to pass the Motion which is before the House. I believe that the Amendment put forward by the Government deals not in an abstract, but in a practical, way with the problem of the genetic difficulties of test explosions which, I think, is a minute fraction of the problem before us. But the great problem, as has been said tonight, is the knowledge of good and evil which has been put into our hands—the genie has got out of the bottle. How we are to control that will call for the close and continuous attention of this Parliament, and of many Parliaments to come.
5.14 p.m.
Mrs. Alice Cullen: Great concern is felt in Glasgow as to what might happen to its people in the event of atomic warfare. Three years ago, Professor Oliphant, the atomic scientist, told us:
"If an atom bomb was dropped on Glasgow, it would kill 50,000 people and seriously in-pure another 100,000, and completely destroy three square miles of the city."
Since then, the Prime Minister has told us that the hydrogen bomb is 1,000 times more powerful. Speaking to civil defence

1911
workers recently, the Assistant Chief Constable of Glasgow said:
"If an atom bomb burst over Glasgow it would be Scotland's bomb. With all its resources, Glasgow could not handle it."
In the Clyde area is concentrated one-third of the population of Scotland. One hydrogen bomb dropped over Glasgow would turn the West of Scotland into a radioactive wilderness. The people of Glasgow have recently been reading a series of articles on the H-bomb written by "A Science Correspondent." I will give some quotations from those articles. The say:
"The explosion of a hydrogen bomb over a large city will produce such prompt and widespread devastation as to make organised activity of any kind virtually impossible. Simple arithmetical calculations make it plain that the fire, rescue and hospital services will be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the holocaust, and it seems likely that Civil Defence will become largely an individual responsibility."
The correspondent goes on to tell us:
"A … hydrogen bomb"—
that is, one with a destructiveness equal to 20 million tons of T.N.T.—
"will, one way or another, kill almost everyone within a radius of five miles who is not in a deep shelter."
We have no deep shelters in Glasgow.
"Outside this area there will be heavy damage up to a distance of at least 10 miles."
One of the articles was illustrated by a map showing the towns outside Glasgow which would be heavily damaged. They included Paisley, Renfrew, Clydebank, Coatbridge, Airdrie, Rutherglen, Hamilton, Barrhead, Johnstone and the new town of East Kilbride. We are also told that radioactive dust would even affect towns as far off as Aberdeen. Finally, we are told:
"The hydrogen bomb is capable of producing serious damage or injury at distances up to 100 miles, and it will not be safe to rely on much organised help in this area."
The Science Correspondent of the "Glasgow Herald" is alarmed at the genetic possibilities of radioactivity unloosed by the hydrogen bomb. He says:
"The damage will have been done and the evolutionary progress of mankind irrevocably altered. There is no way of halting the degenerative process when once it has begun."
I think I am safe in saying that, speaking first as a mother and as a grandmother, I speak for the women of Scotland when I say that I hope that
1912
tonight the Government will accept the Opposition Motion.
5.18 p.m.
Viscountess Davidson: I am sure the whole House welcomes the opportunity given by the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) and some of her colleagues to discuss the effects of nuclear explosions, because not only is it a matter of vital importance to this country, but to the whole of mankind, and certainly one which concerns equally men and women.

We are, of course, in agreement with much of what has just been said by the hon. Lady the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen). But if it is true that no two economists agree with each other, it would appear to be equally true of scientists. So many contradictory opinions exist on this subject that it is absolutely necessary that we should keep a very balanced judgment and not allow ourselves to jump to conclusions or to panic before the results of the research which is being undertaken at the present in practically every country are more definitely known.
There is nothing more dangerous, or, indeed, more wrong than to play on the natural fears and anxieties which exist in the public mind today, particularly among women. Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I think that we can all feel a little comforted, because he has told us something about the extent of the research work that is now being carried out.
The House cannot have been left in any doubt that there is no complacency on the part of the Government. We are pursuing investigations into these problems with the utmost energy. As he said, it is the responsibility of the Government to keep the House and the country up to date with information. They did so in the recent Defence White Paper, which told us of the part that could be played by nuclear power. The Minister has now told us something of the possibilities of the peaceful uses of nuclear power. If the world is to survive, those peaceful uses transcend all others.
Radioactivity has existed since the beginning of the world. The extraction of radium from pitchblende, and its concentration, became both a blessing and an

1913
immense danger to mankind. Used in short applications upon what had hitherto been incurable diseases, it is a specific cure, but while not in use it has to be kept under control, and if it is used by inexperienced persons, left about or lost, it might prove fatal to the individual, and the very disease which it could cure could be created.
The problems emphasised in the Motion are not new; they are merely much greater in degree and wider in their application. My criticism of the Motion is that—perhaps intentionally—it gives the impression that nothing is being done. This has been repudiated very definitely by the Minister of Health today. The other weakness of the Motion is the omission of any mention of disarmament. The link between the two is essential. By all means let us pursue relentlessly our research upon the general effects of nuclear explosions, but let us as urgently pursue the goal of disarmament, which alone can make certain that the hydrogen and all other forms of nuclear bomb will no longer be manufactured, and that nuclear energy will become a blessing to mankind.
The suggestion contained in the Motion for bringing together scientists from various countries, including Russia, sounds so simple. If Soviet Russia would give just one practical token of good faith in any of the problems to which she has devoted so much talk in the past ten years I should feel more confident of the value of seeking any real contribution from her in this new aspect of nuclear development. I support the Amendment because, far from being evasive, it covers a much wider field and is much more realistic in its approach to this problem than is the Motion.
5.23 p.m.
Mr. Ian Winterbottom: I hope that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) will forgive me if I do not directly follow her remarks. I am very glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends have put down this Motion, because the one thing that the public requires most urgently is a clear and authoritative statement of the implications of thermonuclear experiments, the building of atomic power stations and the full implications of thermonuclear warfare.

The weakness of the Government's Amendment upon this subject lies in the fact that it contains no suggestion for
1914
telling the people what it is all about. It says, "Let us carry on with the research." That is absolutely right, but we want more than research; we also want information. Our people will face very great dangers provided they know what to expect and are certain that the information that they receive is not tainted.
One point upon which I disagree with my right hon. and hon. Friends concerns the method of carrying out this research and presenting it to the people. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) that this type of job is far better done by national groups than international groups—and, as far as our people are concerned, by British scientists and laymen. The hard fact is that the implications of thermo-nuclear warfare and the whole new era into which we are entering—in which, among other duties, we shall have to dispose of large quantities of radioactive waste from power stations—are sufficiently serious in themselves, but many people are trying to make them worse, for their own ends.
There is no doubt that part of the Communist strategy is to frighten the West into an attitude of neutralism. We have only to remember General Zhukov's words to realise that. Some hon. Members may have seen that beautiful French film "La Vie Commence Demain" whose only purpose was to frighten the French people into neutrality.
Mrs. Jean Mann: The same thing is happening here.
Mr. Winterbottom: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right.
It is rather interesting to note that this type of propaganda is being put out so successfully by the Communist world that the Communists are frightening their own people. M. Thorez issued a warning to an over-zealous comrade that he was absolutely right in his interpretation of the party line, but he must not "lay it on too thick," because, whereas the capitalist world would be destroyed by thermonuclear warfare, the Communist world would survive. One of the charges levelled against Mr. Malenkov is that he is a little too pessimistic when looking into the future.
We must not, therefore, forget this clouded purpose behind many of the pro-

1915
nouncements which are put out by the Communists. That is why I question the wisdom of collaborating with U.S.S.R. scientists upon this issue at the present time. There is a difference between the type of study proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) and the study which will take place in Geneva this August. That will be a world study of the peaceful uses of atomic energy, but what we are trying to do is to find out the full implications of this new world into which we are moving, with all its dangers and potentialities, so that we can give a clear lead to our people.
The fundamental assumption behind the idea of an international conference of scientists is that all scientists are impartial; that their pursuit of truth is unclouded, and is part of the very nature of scientific research. That, unfortunately, is not true. Scientists are as partial as any other men—and for some reason nuclear physicists tend to be rather more partial in their search for truth than many other types of scientist. We must not forget that in the U.S.S.R. and Communist China all scientific policy is subordinated to State policy. Some of us may remember the sordid squabble which occurred in the field of genetic theory between Mr. Lysenko and Mr. N. I. Vavilov, which ended in Mr. Vavilov being sent to a prison camp, where he died, simply because he disagreed with Mr. Lysenko. Comrade Lysenko has now been ditched, but he has done the damage.
None of us will forget the fake science which was dished up by Chinese scientists when it suited their ends—the house flies that would have been frozen stiff in the snow, and bacteria which had nothing to do with the plague. That was a perfect example of the type of misuse of science which, I fear, might occur in the kind of international conference proposed by my right hon. Friend. The trouble is that in measuring roentgen units Communist scientists would record any figure that the State told them to, and that in a general debate they would purposely confuse the issue so that the minds of people in this country and in other countries would also be confused.
An inquiry should be made and should be published, but it should be done for the people of Britain by British scientists. The work going on in the laboratories is
1916
giving us a great deal of information; it should be brought together and put before our own people. It is no good asking the Americans to help us. Hon. Members may have seen the statement made by Dr. LeRoy, who has been looking into the damage done to Marshall Islanders and to Japanese. He has a great deal of information, but because of the shackling effect of American security legislation he cannot present it.
We have a body of knowledge and freedom from artificial shackles. We therefore have an opportunity of putting forward a dispassionate study, which would be accepted by our people. This would enable us to face the real perils which are before us. I am not like the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove. I must distinguish between two kinds of danger, the peaceful and experimental use, and the effect in war. Those are two separate problems. Both have dangers, both cause unquiet and both should be studied and the results given to our people.
We should not leave this job to the scientists alone. Good people as they are, they have a narrow vision. When we are setting up a Royal Commission we usually appoint a lawyer or a judge as chairman of the Commission. Similarly, in work of this sort, the scientists should be assisted by lay assessors. I am all for getting at the truth of this matter, but I want the truth and nothing but the truth, and I feel that the way I have described is the only way of getting it.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: I do not propose to follow at great length what has been said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winter-bottom). I agree that we should take care that British scientists have a great part in inquiring into the implications of this terrifying problem.
But the hon. Member put his finger on the main weakness of the Opposition Motion. With all respect to those who moved it, I think it is fair to say that an international conference of scientists, with all the differences of opinion that might occur on the question of the genetic effects of the hydrogen bomb, is not so practical a suggestion as final disarmament. The question of future test

1917
explosions surely comes within the sphere of the disarmament conference. That is the main reason why I support the Government Amendment. There is confusion between the question of research, which is of vital importance, and the question of what we should do in future to make progress with general disarmament.
One or two matters arise out of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. Much radiobiological research is carried out at Harwell, in my own constituency. My right hon. Friend said that the Government would give attention to the expansion of research. Everybody who has listened to the debate will regard that statement as of very great moment. My right hon. Friend was asked whether investigation had been made into some kind of antidote to the effects of radiation. He may be aware that those concerned with this type of research are developing a preparation of spleen and bone-marrow cells as an antidote. That is the kind of information to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central said publicity ought to be given.
All scientists who have given information on this difficult matter have said that the experiments may take years to complete. The need for trained scientists in this sphere is very great. It goes with the Government's proposals that support should be given to this field of research, and I was very glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said about it. It is not known how much damage is caused by a given dose of radiation, and the whole question of mutation in human beings is not yet fully understood. For that reason the proper way to look at the matter is not to suggest a general, international conference of scientists but to get the maximum support for British scientists and for those who are cooperating with them.
As much progress as possible should be made in reaching agreement with the Soviet Union and other Powers with a view to final disarmament, and that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Nevertheless, confusion of thought has been shown between the need for research and the need for disarmament. The Government Amendment is, therefore, of much more practical value in this very difficult problem.
5.36 p.m.
Mrs. Barbara Castle: It is clear from all the speeches from the benches opposite that the Government have totally failed, once again, to grasp the urgency of the international situation and the scientific implications of the hydrogen bomb arms race. They have been trying to find respectable reasons for doing nothing whatsoever about it.

The speeches have been all of a piece with the Government's diplomacy of do nothing, of failure to initiate high-level talks, of refusal to take the lead in banning hydrogen bomb tests, of refusal even to have an international scientific inquiry into the consequences of those tests. All sorts of reasons have been advanced this afternoon why the simple request in our Motion should be turned down. The reasons overlook the one simple, dominant fact, that our Motion is based on the demand of scientists themselves, both in this country and in America, and probably, if we could get at them, of scientists in Russia itself.
Let me remind the House that the Motion was inspired by a plea from the Federation of American Scientists. These are the men who know, and who are doing the research. These are the men who turn to the politicians, and says "We are playing with dynamite. We warn you of the consequences of the forces that we are helping to let loose on the world and that may be disastrous to all of us. We are doing our scientific job; now you do your political job and help to use this knowledge to bring the nations of the world together who are faced with a common danger."
That is the plea to which the Government have given an evasive and cowardly answer. The trouble is that the Government are so busy waging the cold war that they will not even look for opportunities for peace. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) told us that the knowledge that we have in this country of the effects of thermonuclear explosions would be in no way reinforced by an international commission. He is overlooking the words and the statements of the very men in this country who have been doing the scientific research into the problem to which the Minister of Health, referred.

1919
Let me call attention to a letter in "The Times" of 10th March from Professor Waddington, of the Institute of Animal Genetics, in Edinburgh—a man who in this matter knows what he is talking about if anyone does. In his opening paragraph he says that the plea of the Federation of American Scientists for a United Nations Commission ought to be supported.
If he were here, Professor Waddington could dispose of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove, because in that letter, while he notes and welcomes the fact that the Government are now belatedly to expand and accelerate research in this field, he goes on:
"Even so, it seems doubtful if this country alone can devote to the problem resources commensurate with its importance, which is a matter not for any single country or period of time but for mankind as a whole throughout its future."
That is the reason for this Motion.
The Motion is based on two profound beliefs. First of all, there is the belief that this is a field of scientific inquiry of such international interest that international resources must be brought to bear upon it. Professor Waddington pleads for massive experiments. Anyone hearing us talk tonight would think that we had limitless resources in this country and all the brains in the world and could go on working in a national compartment, doing a limited job, and could then say to the people, "We are doing all we can." There can be nothing but advantage in extending the field of international co-operation—nothing but scientific advantage, but, above all, nothing but political advantage.
The second reason for the Motion is that we believe that the world is faced with a common enemy and we hope that we may sober mankind by the shock of truth if we can only get that truth across. We believe that the best way to get it across is to start to co-operate in this immediate and, heaven knows, innocent enough, field. If we are not to co-operate here, in what are we to co-operate—and when?
We are always told that the Government have peace and disarmament at heart. Where do we start—and when—on this task of breaking down tension and uniting the nations of the world? Here is a threat from outside, transcend-
1920
ing national and ideological frontiers, as we used to imagine an invasion from Mars would do. This is the situation which is upon us. What does the Minister of Health give us in reply to that picture? Does he seize this opportunity?
The Government tell us they are straining at the leash to take the initiative for peace, yet, when it comes to tying them down, when it comes to action, we find that they always evade it, just as the Prime Minister spoke of high-level talks and then, when M. Malenkov agreed to talk with him, ran away from them on 26th July last year. When we now show that there is a fruitful field for inquiry, and the possibility of banning hydrogen bomb tests, what do the Government say? All they will tell us, in the words of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 21st March, is that it would be very dangerous to ban hydrogen bomb tests because our people might fall into a false sense of security. It is the Government who are creating the false sense of security tonight.
We have never suggested a unilateral banning of tests, but have said that we should try to get the scientists of the world together to gather the information which is the warning to us all of what may befall the human species if we do not stop this mad thermonuclear arms race and the explosions which are part and parcel of it. We believe that if that knowledge could be pooled and brought, as it could be brought, to all the peoples of the world, we might begin to get the mental climate which might enable us to talk about disarmament.
With the Government it is all talk and no action. They always fight on distant battlefields and never on the one under their noses. We are told that there cannot be an international commission of inquiry because the Russian scientists would not be free. I greatly regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) lent his support to the thesis that Russian scientists would come along gagged. How free are some of our own scientists and some of the American scientists? I ask that because all scientists working on security matters are gagged. That is why a lot of them are walking out of security work and returning to the civilian field so that they can tell the truth because they are alarmed.
Brigadier Terence Clarke: Like the hon. Lady's friend Pontecorvo.
Mrs. Castle: What about the case reported only last week, of the two scientists of the University of Colorado who warned the world that radioactive fall-out in recent United States tests had reached a point in Colorado "where it could no longer be ignored by those concerned with public safety?" They were men with a great sense of public responsibility. What was their reward? The Governor of Colorado dismissed their report as "phoney" and said that they should be arrested.
Brigadier Clarke: Probably right.
Mrs. Castle: That is exactly the attitude. The Governor said, "It will only alarm people."
Let us remember that one of the men who belongs to the Federation of American Scientists, which is supporting this plea for an international inquiry, is Dr. Oppenheimer, a man concerned with the development work of atomic physics in the United States from the very beginning. He helped in the development of the atomic bomb and further atomic weapons and went on to the threshold of the development of the hydrogen bomb. Now, because he had a conscience and hesitated in his advice to the United States Government, wondering whether any nation ought to launch such an instrument on the world, he is branded as a poor security risk. Let us, therefore, have less talk about the gagging being all on one side.
Surely nothing but good can come from getting the scientists together. Let us do a little brain-washing of Russian scientists and send them back with some fear in their souls—that would be worth while even if it is to be only that sort of one-way traffic. But surely there are more hopeful possibilities than that.
If the Government will not even do that, what else are they prepared to do? For days they have talked about their concern over this problem. The Foreign Secretary hinted the other day that perhaps this conference which is to take place at Geneva in June could be widened in its terms of reference. He promised to inquire into it. At least the Government have had the honesty today to admit that that idea has been abandoned. We knew
1922
that it had, in any case, but they admit it. Now that they are not even prepared to do that, we ask, "What about taking the lead in trying to secure the banning of the hydrogen bomb tests?"
The warnings that are given to us about these tests come not from disreputable sources, as the Minister of Health suggested, but from sources like Professor Waddington, of the Institute of Animal Genetics, in Edinburgh. Let me remind hon. Members of what he said in his letter to "The Times" about the dangers that face us:
"Our present knowledge makes it almost certain that such tests will tend to produce long-term genetical effects of a harmful kind."
There is plenty of evidence from the most reputable and cautious sources that biologists, physicists and scientists generally are deeply concerned. The "Practitioner" produced a very interesting edition in December, 1950, on the medical effects of atomic warfare. The biological dangers of such warfare were clearly outlined in that volume and we were given a picture of the human race walking on a genetical tightrope, and if we shake that rope even a little we may precipitate disaster. What we are doing in these tests is to shake the rope.
Scientists believe that we are increasing the background radiation in the world to the point of danger. But will the Government listen and take action? We had from the Minister of Health nothing but sneers and the suggestion that we had no reputable evidence to support our claim. We are told that the Amendment is more practical than the Motion and gets us further. It offers merely
"to collaborate … with those countries with whom arrangements already exist"—
we have not been told who they are—
"and with such others as can usefully be brought into consultation."
Does that include the United States of America? Perhaps we can have an answer to that question.
Are we pooling information with the United States of America? When my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) asked the Minister of Health about the fall-out from the Bikini test on the United States and suggested that it had not been evenly distributed, the Minister replied that he knew nothing about the effects of the Bikini tests on the United States.
Mr. Elliot: The Minister did not wish to dogmatise about something of such great importance across the Floor of the House. He was asked whether the figures given by the United States were average figures covering the whole country or whether they took into account the greater concentration in one area than in another. Naturally, the Minister would not wish to dogmatise about a thing like that across the Floor of the House.
Mrs. Castle: The Minister gave us a speech on carefully prepared scientific brief. Scientists know that one of the factors we have to take into account when assessing the increase in background radiation from these explosions, is that the radioactive effect does not spread evenly and that there may be concentrations in certain areas. It is not correct to give a picture which shows a nice, even spreading out of the effects. Therefore, for the Minister of Health to say that he did not know anything about the matter means that we are in ignorance of the effects in the United States, and that we are all talking in general terms about something about which it is urgently necessary for us to be specific without any loss of time.
I was interested to note that the Government have beaten a further retreat this afternoon. Previously, when we have asked Questions about the genetic consequences of hydrogen bomb explosions, the Government have called in aid the Report of the Atomic Energy Commission of the United States. We have had quoted to us the fact that there is no danger yet because the Atomic Energy Commission Report declares that the increase in radiation from all explosions in all countries concerned to date has not exceeded one-tenth of a roentgen. This is supposed to make us feel secure.
I find that the Minister of Health is now backing out of this calculation, which has been the Government's main defence so far. He is trying to make out that the picture is less bad than the Atomic Energy Commission Report implied. As a matter of fact, it is far worse, because the Report is totally misleading when it suggests that the increased dose of radiation from hydrogen bomb explosions so far is merely an unimportant fraction of the radiation which we are getting from natural causes. The excellent survey on atomic energy of the
1924
Atomic Scientists' Association last year, a fascinating survey compiled by men like Sir John Cockcroft and other eminent scientists, estimated that the natural background radiation that we are, in fact, getting each year is one-tenth of a roentgen. In other words, on the estimate of the Atomic Energy Commission's Report itself, we have already doubled the background radiation in the world per year. We are already at the danger point. Scientists believe that, and that is the cry that we are bringing before the House.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) so admirably pointed out in her opening speech, it is nonsense to dismiss this as a dose equivalent of one chest X-ray. A whole body dose is a very different matter from a chest X-ray dose. Moreover, I suggest that the danger is far more immediate than any of us have yet appreciated. We are being given the impression that such increase in natural radiation as has already taken place has been the consequence of all the explosions in all countries since these explosions started. But we are getting a little more information these days about the hydrogen bomb, its physics and its construction.
We are now told, as was revealed in the "Daily Telegraph" last week, that the hydrogen bomb is not, as we used to assume, a fission-fusion bomb, but a threefold bomb—a fission-fusion-fission bomb with an outer coat of uranium, a highly fissile material, which means that the radioactivity of the hydrogen bomb is anything from 100 to 1,000 times greater than that of the ordinary atomic bomb.
These are the facts which the Government are not bringing forward for consideration. If that is true, if, in the last twelve months, we, or, rather the Americans, and perhaps the Russians as well, have produced a bomb with this vast increase in radioactive effect, it means that the stepping-up of the natural radiation in the world which has already been measured has taken place not in the last ten years but mainly in the last twelve months. This is the urgency of the problem before us. It is in the face of these facts that the Government want us to give them a mandate to do nothing, not even to have an internationalinquiry or

1925
to ascertain whether the world will agree to abolish the tests.
Some of us opposed the manufacture of the hydrogen bomb by this country because we believe that these continued explosions can mean genetic death to mankind, unless we awaken to the dangers involved. The Government try to ride away from those dangers by saying that the genetic consequences are so long-term, and can only be estimated in thousands of years, that they can be laughed off. A wit once said that a politician is a man who thinks of the next election, and a statesman is one who thinks of the next generation. We have to be super-statesmen. We have to think of hundreds of generations ahead if we are to measure up to the demands of this hour.
I do not believe that this matter can be left to Governments working in secrecy, hiding facts from one another, and behaving as though national frontiers mattered in the face of this menace. This is a matter in which the scientists of the world must be encouraged to give a lead, sponsored and encouraged by Governments, but not gagged by them. I believe that scientists would respond to that great opportunity and make mankind realise the overwhelming and appalling dangers which face the world today.
I am sorry that the Minister of Health has given us such a lame and lamentable answer to this challenge. The pooling of our knowledge could bring the nations of the world together as nothing else could. If we will only realise it, this is an external threat which is politically neutral, which should overcome national and ideological barriers and unite the planet earth in face of a common danger.
6.0 p.m.
Miss Irene Ward: In the opening and admirable speech for the Government, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said that he hoped his speech would be read in conjunction with that of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), and I think that all who have listened to the debate will hope that the report will also be read in full by all those who are interested in this very important subject.
I do not intend to follow the arguments of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle). I can only hope that the enemies of this country will
1926
read what she said, because it will perhaps be of some interest to them. Certainly it will not be of an interest to the friends of peace and the friends of the Western world. I want to link her speech with a comment which was made, I think, by my right hon. Friend, on how unwise it would be to place any reliance on an international conference of scientists which included scientists from behind the Iron Curtain.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) referred to bacteriological warfare and the claims which were made by the Communist Chinese at the time the controversy on bacteriological warfare was raging. When listening to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East, I could not help remembering that there was a time when Mrs. Monica Felton was a member of the Labour Party, and I should like to draw a very close analogy between Dr. Felton and the hon. Lady.
Mr. Ellis Smith: What party was Captain Ramsay in?
Miss Ward: After all, both ladies are redheads, and I think they would make a very good partnership.
Mrs. Castle Mrs. Castle rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not think hon. ladies should call each other names across the Floor.
Miss Ward: I have no intention of calling the hon. Lady names. Her speech speaks for itself, and it is just as well that it has been put on the record.
I want to return to the subject of the debate and to comment on the statement that nothing has been done in examining the problems which arise out of nuclear power. My right hon. Friend quite rightly made his speech entirely on the medical side, but I want to draw attention to the fact that the Service Departments are also playing their part in trying to obtain all the information they can from hydrogen bomb explosions. As has been seen in the Press, within quite recent times the Air Force has had experimental planes flying very high in order to ascertain what they could about the radioactive clouds which have been observed floating over parts of the earth.

1927
It is quite untrue to say that the Government have paid no attention to facts which ought to be examined. Indeed, a great deal is going on in this matter, and I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works winds up the debate he will give us all the information he can outside what I would call the medical sphere.
In the short time left at my disposal, I want to refer to the conference which, is to take place at Geneva. Before the war I had the great honour to represent His Majesty's Government, at that time, on two occasions. The Social Questions Committee concerned itself with health questions as well as social questions, and we found that it was relatively easy to get effective co-operation on that Committee. In some ways it is a tragedy, and in some ways not, that the League of Nations is remembered today only for the effective work of the Committee on Social Questions.
I therefore hope that, when the conference takes place at Geneva, the scientists who will be present from all over the world, removed from political controversy, I hope, will be able to concern themselves with the experiments, the progress and the security which is necessary in connection with the use of nuclear power.
A great many of us are members of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which ranges widely over affairs, and from time to time most interesting information is brought to our notice. The other day I accepted an invitation to go to the Royal Marsden cancer hospital and to hear the results of some of the experiments which were taking place there in the medical use of nuclear power. May I say this to the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West: I cannot help commenting that in a number of most interesting visits which the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee has made over a wide field, I do not remember having seen any of the hon. Ladies opposite or the right hon. Lady present.
I am glad to see that the women Members of the Opposition have combined in this matter. As I pointed out to the right hon. Lady, we started that idea of co-operation during the war under the Coalition Government, and I am delighted that she has profited by my tuition,
1928
because she was then under my chairmanship and I found her a very good co-operator. I am delighted that she has profited by the precedent which we set in the days of the Coalition Government of having debates on womens' affairs from time to time, although I agree with my noble Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) that this is not in fact a women's question but a matter for the nation as a whole.
I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members opposite who are interested in this subject that, if they are not already members of it, they should take a more active part in the Parliamentary and Scientifics Committee. They would then realise how much knowledge is available, what experiments are going on and the active and all-embracing work which is being carried out with the blessing of the Government. It is in the interest of all nations that we should tell the world that we have our eyes on all aspects of this matter and are taking active steps to try to help in this very difficult and complicated new discovery.
6.10 p.m.
Miss Elaine Burton: In winding up this debate for the Opposition, I should like first to refer to the speech of the Minister of Health. I think he was perfectly fair and made no attempt to be party-minded. I did not agree with his attitude, and I propose to say why, but I do think he was fair.
First, the right hon. Gentleman told us that the Medical Research Council has been conducting research into this matter for eight or ten years. We never said it had not. Our Motion does not say that research is not being conducted. So far as I know that certainly has not been raised by hon. Members on these benches. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman make the point that he considered that the comparison with X-rays of the chest was not relevant to what he was saying. I hope to say something about that later, because I do not think it is at all related to the subject of the Motion.
I do not wish to call the right hon. Gentleman inhuman, because I do not think he is, but he really made a most inhuman statement when he said that he felt this was "an interesting, basic, scientific problem." My quarrel and, I think, the quarrel of my hon. and right

1929
hon. Friends with the Government tonight is that, perhaps with all the sincerity in the world, the Government are looking on this matter as an interesting, basic, scientific problem, and we are not. The right hon. Gentleman said that workers in atomic factories—I am not going into technical terms—were allowed to receive 0·3 roentgen of these rays and went on to say that it might well be disastrous if the population as a whole were exposed to doses like that. He also said that if the Medical Research Council asked for more money for research Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to provide that money.
After that, the right hon. Gentleman took exactly the same line as the Lord President of the Council took in another place. That line was that it really was not any use considering having at a conference scientists who came from beyond the Iron Curtain as they were not impartial. That seems to us to be begging the issue. I do not think for one moment that we are entitled to say who is and who is not impartial. On these benches we would dispute the suggestion of the Government that we are never to have an international conference on anything because some people who come to it may not be impartial. That seems to be the absolute negation of doing anything.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the conference to be held in Geneva in August. If I heard him rightly, he gave the answer which the Lord President of the Council in another place was not prepared to give. I think the Minister of Health said that the Government did not consider that it would be possible to widen the terms of reference of that conference to be held in Geneva to include the subject of this Motion.
Mr. Iain Macleod: I did not say that it would not be possible. I said I thought it would be unwise to do that because it might detract attention from the devotion of that conference to the peaceful uses of atomic power.
Miss Burton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I am sorry that I misquoted him.
The next point the right hon. Gentleman made is one with which I think most of us on this side of the House very strongly disagree; I certainly do. I think the Government are putting the cart
1930
before the horse. I am not going to be deflected from the very narrow terms of what we are asking by this Motion. We are asking for a conference of scientists. I cannot see that we have to have disarmament in the world before we can have a conference of scientists. I hope that the Minister of Works will make that point clear. I listened to the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and could not sort out the suggestion at all. We on these benches are of opinion that a conference of scientists might help eventually to bring about disarmament. But, if any person tells the country that we must have disarmament before a conference of scientists can be held, the country will not agree.
I regretted a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom), for whom I have great respect and regard. Probably he knows considerably more about these matters than I do, but I was very shattered to hear him say that he did not think it would be a good idea to have an international conference because the Russians would not be impartial. He went on to plunge us still further into gloom by saying that it would not be possible to have the Americans either because of the shackling effect of their security regulations. If we are to go on like that we had better put women in power in order to get something done.
I think it would be true to say that most of us who have supported this Motion believe that explosion is not the worst feature of the hydrogen bomb. It would be fair to say that we believe radioactivity in its various and almost unlimited forms is the worst danger. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), in the debate of 14th March, wondered
"how much thought has been applied to the simple theory that whole sections of a country can be rendered useless. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14thMarch, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 975.]
simply because of a menace which we cannot see, the menace of atmospheric radiation. He felt that was the worst danger of all. On 10th March the Prime Minister told us, and I quote him because I wish it to be on the record:
"According to paragraph 40 of the official report issued by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on 15th February, the atomic and nuclear tests so far carried out have only released enough radioactive material

1931
into the atmosphere to cause an individual living in the United States to receive the same quantity of radiation that he would have received in having his chest X-rayed at a hospital. The experts whose advice is at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government see, I am informed, no reason to dissent from this opinion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 613.]
It is no use giving that sort of information to the public.
I am no medical expert, but I think I am correct in saying that X-ray photographs of the chest are taken fairly infrequently, and anyway we are not discussing that in the context of tonight's debate. It is quite misleading to make any comparison with chest X-rays because chest X-rays do not affect the reproductive organs, which are in the pelvis. An hon. Friend says, "Not necessarily." In the early months of pregnancy it is only in the case of the greatest necessity that a woman's abdomen is X-rayed. This House should realise that fact. It is one of the points behind the Motion we are discussing. The answer given by the Prime Minister did not satisfy my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. On 14th March my right hon. Friend declared:
"… I really do not think we know enough about this."
He went on to make the categorical statement:
"Further experiments, quite unrelated to the total amount of radiation in the world, are being carried out on both sides of the Iron Curtain both in the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R."
Our Motion is based on the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in that debate. I think, perhaps, it would be as well if we remembered exactly what those comments were. My right hon. Friend said:
"We really do not know enough about all the effects of these experiments that are going on in the world. …We are faced, however, with the fact that these various scientific experiments are apparently making possibilities of wide change in the whole composition of the world in which we live. I think it is time that there was a very full investigation into this … I think it would be an enormous advantage to the world if we could have an agreed statement made by scientists drawn from as wide an area as possible with the purpose of convincing people in all countries of the danger the world stands in, not merely of atomic warfare"—
which is what some hon. Members seem to think we are discussing—
1932
"but of the continued experimentation in these dangerous practices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1955; Vol. 538, cc. 956–7.]
Probably many Members of the House have studied a pamphlet which was published by the Stationery Office in 1946. This was a report of the British Mission to Japan, and was entitled "The Effects of the Atomic Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki." I wish to quote from that pamphlet one paragraph, paragraph 77:
"The effects of gamma rays on human reproduction necessarily form a long-term study, which will continue for some years. Of the effects already detected, the most striking are those on pregnancies at all stages from two months onwards. …"
Certainly the women Members of the House say—I should have thought all Members of the House would have said—that these matters merit immediate action.
In 1951 a book was published called "We of Nagasaki," and the sub-title was "The story of the survivors in an atomic world." The man who was responsible for putting together those stories was a Dr. Nagai. He was a survivor of the Nagasaki bomb and a bedridden victim of radiation from 1945 until he died in 1951. He spent the last six years of his life studying the effects of the atom bomb and of the treatment on himself and others. It is said today that his analysis of radiation sickness may save the lives of future victims in any atomic war, but we who are supporting this Motion today are asking ourselves whether his work will be necessary to save lives, not in any atomic war, but in the peace-time experiments which are being carried on today.
That is the reason for our anxiety. That is why this Motion is being debated. That is why the Leader of the Opposition asked for an agreed statement on this problem by scientists drawn from as wide an area as possible. That is why the Leader of the Liberal Party on 14th March supported that proposal and asked the Government if they would put it forward to Russia and ask whether Russia would be prepared to take part. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), in that same debate, repeated the warning which had been given by the eminent scientist, Professor Haddow, to the effect that perhaps 100 hydrogen bomb explosions would do irreparable genetic damage to the human race.

1933
While most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate today—I believe all of us but two—are not scientists or medical experts we on this side of the House have been very fortunate in having our Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), who is an expert in medicine, and I should like to pay tribute also to the very moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), whose initiative was responsible in the first place for the putting down of the Motion. We enjoyed very much listening to her today. However, one need not be either a scientist or a medical expert to say with respect that the Prime Minister did not help either the House or the country on 15th March, when he was replying to Questions about the risks of radiation from nuclear weapon tests. He said:
"I think I should make a mistake if I tried to give a resume' of the position up to date every day at Question time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 1129.]
That is not good enough on a matter which so affects the well-being of every man, woman and child in the world.
In the debate on the day before, on 14th March, the Foreign Secretary did not get us much farther with the matter we are discussing. In winding up the debate that night he replied to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that the tests should be stopped by agreement with Russia and America, by saying that there was now a fundamental difficulty, and that that was that the experiments were now possible
"… without a bang."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 1078.]
In view of what has been said today as to the exact words which were used, I have checked them up, and it is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman did say that. If the Minister of Works cares to look the words up in Hansard, he will find that I am correct. Anyway, all of us would say that if tests with a bang or without a bang spread harmful radiation, the arguments for stopping them are as strong as ever. We do not mind whether they have a bang or have no bang. We are concerned with the effects of radiation.
I quote from the leader of the "Manchester Guardian" on 16th March:
"The great fear about these tests is that the radiation from them may do irreparable
1934
damage. Most of the radiation, of course, is confined to the test areas. Some—perhaps most—of the radioactive effects beyond the test areas decrease quickly with the time and distance travelled. But some are lasting. The amount of radiation in the atmosphere right round the world is affected by the tests in Siberia, Australia, the Pacific, and Nevada. This radiation … can influence human reproduction. Its damage may hurt not us or our children but our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The damage may not be evident in this generation or the next but only when it is beyond repair. Nobody knows for certain, but the risk seems real."
Most Members will have read the report, which has been several times referred to in the debate, of the Atomic Energy Commission. The Federation of American Scientists having read it—and the Minister of Works will agree that the members of that body have knowledge of these problems—said that tests may reach a level which can be shown to be a serious genetic threat to peoples all over the world.
We ask the Government, if other Governments are now proposing to make further tests, whether we ought not to take action at the earliest possible moment. There was a debate in another place on 17th March in which the Lord President of the Council on behalf of the Government said that it would not be wise to pin too high hopes on the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and he went on to say that the salient facts with regard to radiation were, after all, already known. But we are not convinced that they are already known, and we are quite sure they are not known to the peoples of the world.
Reference has been made to the conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy to be held at Geneva in August. A suggestion was made in another place that its terms of reference should be extended to include the subjects we are discussing in this debate. The Minister of Health has said, without ruling that that cannot be done, that in his opinion that would not be a good idea. Anyway, whether it is a good idea or not, we want action long before August. We are now in March, and we are asking in the terms of our Motion for this conference to be held as soon as possible.
The Government's Amendment contains the words,
"pending a satisfactory result of the intensive efforts which are being made to achieve a comprehensive scheme of disarmament, …"

1935
"Pending a satisfactory result"—we on this side of the House feel that there is no urgency about this problem on the benches opposite. We do not dispute that hon. Members opposite would like to have the problem dealt with. The whole human race wants it dealt with, but we are trying to infuse a little energy into hon. Members opposite. When does one get anything done by speaking of "pending a satisfactory result"? It means just waiting and waiting. No one is more anxious than the Opposition for a comprehensive scheme of disarmament, and no one has advocated it more strongly than my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
Our Motion does not ask the Government to take any decision about disarmament and we on this side of the House feel that the Motion is being "ridden off," as it were, on this theme of disarmament. We are not asking the Government for disarmament here and now. It should be underlined that we are asking for a very narrow point. We are asking for the holding of a conference of scientists from the United States, the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom and France to advise on the danger facing mankind.
Here are two of the dangers. Last night the "Oxford Mail" published an article which had been prepared in consultation with a number of scientists concerned with the biological effects of atomic radiation. I do not know whether the Minister of Works has seen it. If he has not, it would be quite useful if he were to read it.
Two main points were stressed in the article. It said:
"It is yet too early for the full effects to be seen. …If the amount received is not sufficient to kill, the greatest danger is that the radiation will stimulate cancer formation. This may take a long time to become apparent, but in Hiroshima, the incidence of the cancer of the blood-forming organs has already increased as much as 50 times in some groups of people exposed to the explosion of the atom bomb in 1945"
The article went on to say that another known effect of radiation is its power to upset reproduction.
At Question Time yesterday the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs seemed to differ from the scientists. He said:
"… my scientific advice at the moment is that there is no danger to human life or to
1936
the reproduction of the human animal from any explosions which have so far taken place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 1738.]
If we on this side of the House have to choose between the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman and the opinion of the scientists who are responsible for articles in the "Manchester Guardian" of 16th March, and the "Oxford Mail," I think that hon. Members opposite will not be surprised if we choose the scientists.
As so often happens, science has given us a choice. This fact has been stressed by several speakers today. On the one hand, she has disclosed a rich, untapped source of the power needed to sustain modern civilisation. On the other, she has given men a weapon capable of destroying that civilisation finally. The promise of abundant power to drive machines does not directly pose any moral problems such as we are discussing tonight, but the destructive potentiality of nuclear fission most certainly does.
None of us can see into the future, but it may well be that we are coming to a period when coal and oil will be in short supply in all but a few favoured countries, if only because modern men will refuse to spend all their lives working underground. Even so, if we are not coming to a period of shortage for some countries, atomic energy is the only obvious way in which the world's supply of power can be greatly increased, as it would have to be if it were desired to bring the standards of living of the people in the East and in the tropics up to American or Western European standards. We must all face that.
Ever since the splitting of the "indivisible" atom, mankind has stood on the threshold of a future that no one could foresee. The scientists have given us a new world in which there will be order or chaos: as we will choose. It rests with us. The nuclear physicists have given us the atomic age, and with it they have imposed on every thinking human being, not just upon the politicians, the vital necessity of making adjustments in thinking, in laws, in ways of life, and in human relationships, that will prevent chaos and give mankind, instead, a future golden and peaceful. Our Motion makes no grandiose claims. We do not say that it will give mankind a future golden and peaceful, but we do say, from the bottom of our hearts, that it may save generations

1937
yet unborn, and we hope that the House will accept it.
6.38 p.m.
The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): Perhaps the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) will allow me to congratulate her on her speech. I thought that she had mastered her matter extraordinarily well and that with her final sentiments everybody in the House would agree.
Throughout the debate the standard of speaking has been very high. The House has risen to the level of the theme which we are discussing. Party politics have hardly come into the debate, and I do not except the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), whose invective was very mild compared with what it is normally. I think that we must all agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that the hydrogen bomb is the logical result of our first parents eating the forbidden fruit and that what we are now worried about are the consequences of that event.
It is important, first, to define what the debate is about. As I understand it, the debate is about the possible dangers of radioactivity which may be caused by events short of war. Some hon. Members have been talking about the effects of war and some about the effects of events short of war. When the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), in her very admirable speech, quoted Lord Adrian he was talking about a hydrogen bomb war. It is agreed that the results of such a war would be inconceivably terrible. Compared with them, the minor matters which we are discussing today are almost beside the point.
The Minister of Health, in a very lucid and comprehensive speech, gave the House all the facts that are known to the scientists. I stress the word "scientists." British scientists, in collaboration with American and Canadian scientists, have been able to furnish my right hon. Friend with information. I do not want to go through all those facts and figures again. We can sum up what my right hon. Friend said as follows—first, that there is no immediate danger, and, secondly, that we can probably go a good deal further without danger, but that ultimately there are very great potential dangers. I think
1938
that that is a fair summing up of what my right hon. Friend said.
I turn aside to answer a point made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is not now in his place. He raised the question of the danger of radioactivity from the use of atomic power for civil purposes. I am advised that there is no such danger at all. The danger will not be increased when we have atomic power stations. Such radioactive materials as are emitted are very weak and their effect is not cumulative. Their radioactivity ceases almost at once. I want to dispose of any suggestion that the use of atomic energy for civil purposes raises any danger.
As my right hon. Friend said, this is basically not a party question. I do not think that there is any great difference between the two sides of the House on these matters. We do not exclude any possibility which we think will give us a chance of making progress. But there is a certain difference of approach. We were frequently ask ed, notably by the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), in an admirable speech, "What are we doing about all this?" Our belief is that the only real way of dealing with this situation is by making a success of our policy on disarmament. We are straining every nerve to make it a success, and that is the only realistic thing that we can do.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when speaking in the last debate on a Motion of censure, gave some account of the Anglo-French proposals now being discussed at Lancaster House, and expressed our determination in this respect. I think the House will have read with pleasure that President Eisenhower has appointed one of his most trusted advisers, Mr. Stassen, to take a special post in order to deal with this question; both the Americans and ourselves look upon this as a matter of desperate importance and our main hope. We do not want to talk too much about what happens if it fails. If it fails, which pray God it may not, there will have to be fresh consultations between the nations, and we shall have to see what we can do.
Meanwhile, I must say something about the question of test explosions, which has been raised by many hon. Members. I believe it to be unrealistic to suppose that

1939
in a world armed with atomic weapons we can ever stop everybody from making experiments with prototypes. It may be a desirable thing to do, but I do not think it is realistic. There is, however, one factor which I should like to put before the House because I think it gives a certain amount of hope. Which nations have, in fact, conducted most of the nuclear explosions that have taken place?
The right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West gave the answer. They are the United States of. America and Russia. The United States has conducted them in her own country and in the Pacific, and Russia has conducted them in her own country. Both these nations are fully aware of the dangers. Much has been published about these matters, and there is no secret about them at all. Yet they are carrying out these experiments in their own countries. They are the people who will suffer first from these experiments.
Mr. Ellis Smith: What about the Japanese?
Mr. Birch: May it not be, therefore, that they will not do things which will put their own people and the future of their nations in jeopardy? That is a thought which can give us some hope for the future. They run the greater risk because, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health pointed out, the radiation caused by bombs is already rather over three times as high in America as it is in this country. They are very sensitive indeed about these matters, and I think we can rely on both these nations not doing things which, in the first instance, would ruin their own countries and might, at a later date, ruin every other country.
Mr. F. Beswick: There is some vital information which the Minister of Health did not give us. He suggested that the degree of radioactivity now present in the atmosphere is ·03 of a roentgen as a result of 65 nuclear explosions. What proportion of that radioactivity is the result of the five hydrogen bomb explosions? Has the rate increased in proportion to the increase in the energy generated by this new form of nuclear activity?
Mr. Birch: I cannot answer that question. The figure he gave includes all the
1940
explosions that have taken place and also the effects that will be produced when the fall-out finally comes down.
Mr. Beswick: Is the rate of contamination increasing equally with the rate of power output of this new form of nuclear activity?
Mr. Birch: I am sorry that I cannot answer that. If the hon. Member will put a Question on the Order Paper, we will see whether we can answer it.
So much for that gleam of hope. I should like to make a comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom). I thought for a moment that he must have got hold of my own notes. He made a number of points which I think are very important. First, we must not forget what we are up against, or that there is a threat to the free world. If we watch the present Communist technique and propaganda, we see that they are doing everything to spread panic abroad about the effects of nuclear tests and nuclear explosions, but they do nothing of the sort at home.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central quoted something which I do not think he attributed to Mr. Molotov, but which was, in fact, said by Mr. Molotov:
"The use of the hydrogen bomb in war would not mean the destruction of civilisation, but only of the capitalist Powers."
We do not want to doubt that danger, and we must look it in the face. This is something about which both parties are basically agreed. If we are not agreed about that danger, what other reasons can there be for the great rearmament programme launched by hon. Members opposite? What was their reason for making the atom bomb, and what is their reason for approving of the manufacture of the hydrogen bomb?
I think that in all these matters they have shown very great courage. It was simply that they believed that the danger to the free world was very great, and something had to be done about it. We need, I believe, to look our dangers in the face. We do not want to run away because tiresome, dangerous and bestial things may happen.
I come now to the question of conferences. Conferences can be very

1941
valuable when they are held at the right time and in the right place. [An HON. MEMBER: "And by the right men."] The hon. Member will remember that there were a great many conferences held by hon. Members opposite when they were in power; I would not like to say whether they were held by the right men or not, but they were invariably unsuccessful. I think that after the bitter experience of hon. Members opposite they ought to be careful about continually suggesting that everything can be solved by conferences. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe that conferences at the highest level solve everything it is strange that the leader of the Opposition, when he was in power, never proposed one. But I do not want to insist upon that.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman has developed the theme of the non-free world against the free world and the necessity for co-operation as a premise for the existence and development of the strength of the free world. Can he say what measure of co-operation is already in existence especially between America and this country in regard to atomic research and the utilisation of atomic power?
Mr. Birch: I am coming to the question of research in a moment.
I want to say something about the main bone of contention, whether or not it would be a good thing to have a conference of scientists. This was answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, Central. The difficulty is to get a genuine scientific discussion. Soviet scientists have invariably shown themselves to be State servants first and scientists afterwards.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central mentioned Lysenko who, I understand, is still president of the U.S.S.R. Agricultural Academy, though not so powerful as he once was. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, he started up again the old doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which is not accepted by scientists in general, but because he advocated it, and it was Government policy, it had to be accepted de fide by scientists. The hon. Gentle-
1942
man also pointed out that, in addition, there were the deplorable events about germ warfare in Korea. The danger we foresee in such a conference is that on the side of the free world there would be scientists simply talking science, while on the side of the Communist Powers there would be scientists talking as politicians.
Mrs. Castle Mrs. Castle rose—
Mr. Birch: No, I cannot give way.
As I have said, if the disarmament conference fails we shall have to think again. What we feel is that any conference should be between Governments, advised, of course, by scientists, but a conference between Governments.
On the subject of research, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health gave a fairly full picture. Our co-operation with America and Canada is very good indeed and, although this is a subject where security does impinge to a certain extent, I think that in the matters we are talking about in this debate all the relevant research is published or will be published. The great thing about medical research is that it is published. We are working together as hard as we can. The Americans, the Canadians and ourselves probably have the greatest knowledge and the greatest experience in these matters and it seems to me there is no solid reason to suppose we should get anything very new out of the Russians if they came in.
Several hon. Gentlemen have raised the question whether we should not publish the matter in my right hon. Friend's speech as a White Paper, possibly in the form of an independent report by scientists. That will be favourably considered. I think there is a great deal to be said for it.
We now come to the end of this debate. We have been talking about a subject which has caused us all the gravest anxiety and misery. But, as the Prime Minister said, in the very horror of the possibilities may lie our hope for the future. We shall have no hope unless we keep our nerve, and unless we see this matter steadily and see it whole. We believe that our policy on disarmament is right. We believe our foreign policy is the only one which can ensure the peace of the world and the preserva-

1943
tion of the free world. We intend to pursue those policies with all the vigour in our power, and we pray God to give us strength to succeed.
Mr. Frederick Peart: The Minister sat down rather quickly without answering the point about the meeting of scientists. The British Government have already helped scientists to meet their counterparts from behind the
Iron Curtain. It seems a strange argument that because of different ideologies no scientists should ever meet when the British Government have already sent scientists to Moscow to discuss agricultural problems.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 290.

Division No. 47.]

AYES

[6.58 p.m

Albu, A. H.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

King, Dr. H. M.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Lawson, G. M.

Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

Fernyhough, E.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Fienburgh, W.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Finch, H. J.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Awbery, S. S.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Lewis, Arthur

Bacon, Miss Alice

Follick, M.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Baird, J.

Foot, M. M.

Logan, D. G.

Balfour, A.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

McInnes, J.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Freeman, John (Watford)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Bence, C. R.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

McLeavy, F.

Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Benson, G.

Gibson, C. W.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Beswick, F.

Gooch, E. G.

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

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Bing, G. H. C.

Greenwood, Anthony

Manuel, A. C.

Blackburn, F.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Blenkinsop, A.

Grey, C. F.

Mason, Roy

Blyton, W. R.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mayhew, C. P.

Boardman, H.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mellish, R. J.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Grimond, J.

Messer, Sir F.

Bowden, H. W.

Hale, Leslie

Mitchlson, G. R.

Bowles, F. G.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Monslow, W.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Moody, A. S.

Brockway, A. F.

Hamilton, W. W.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Hannan, W.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hardy, E. A.

Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hargreaves, A.

Moyle, A.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Mulley, F. W.

Burke, W. A.

Hastings, S.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Hayman, F. H.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

O'Brien, T.

Oldfield, W. H.

Carmichael, J.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Oliver, G. H.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Orbach, M.

Champion, A. J.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Oswald, T.

Chapman, W. D.

Hobson, C. R.

Owen, W. J.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Holman, P.

Padley, W. E.

Clunie, J.

Holmes, Horace

Paget, R. T.

Coldrick, W.

Holt, A. F.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Collick, P. H.

Houghton, Douglas

Palmer, A. M. F.

Collins, V. J.

Hoy, J. H.

Pannell, Charles

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hubbard, T. F.

Parker, J.

Cove, W. G.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Pearson, A.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Peart, T. F.

Crosland, C. A. R.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Popplewell, E.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Porter, G.

Daines, P.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Probert, A. R.

Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

Janner, B.

Proctor, W. T.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

Pryde, D. J.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Rankin, John

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Reeves, J.

Deer, G.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Delargy, H. J.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Donnelly, D. L.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Rhodes, H.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmch)

Jones, James (Wrexham)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Keenan, W.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Kenyon, C

Ross, William

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Sylvester, G. O.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Short, E. W.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Wigg, George

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Thornton, E.

Willey, Frederick

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Tomney, F.

Williams, David (Neath)

Skeffington, A. M.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

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

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Usborne, H. C.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Viant, S. P.

Willis, E. G.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Wade, D. W.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Sorensen, R. W.

Warbey, W. N.

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Watkins, T. E.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Sparks, J. A.

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

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Steel, T.

Weitzman, D.

Wyatt, W. L.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Yates, V. F.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Wells, William (Walsall)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

West, D. G.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Wheeldon, W. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Swingler, S. T.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Mr. James Johnson and

Mr. Wallace.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

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

Davidson, Viscountess

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Alport, C. J. M.

De la Bère, Sir Rupert

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Digby, S. Wingfield

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Donner, Sir P. W.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Arbuthnot, John

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Armstrong, C. W.

Drayson, G. B.

Hurd, A. R.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir. T. (Richmond)

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

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

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Duthie, W. S.

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

Iremonger, T. L.

Baldwin, A. E.

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Wrwk & Lgtn)

Jennings, Sir Roland

Banks, Col. C.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Barber, Anthony

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Barlow, Sir John

Errington, Sir Eric

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Erroll, F. J.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Fell, A.

Kaberry, D.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Finlay, Graeme

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Fisher, Nigel

Kerr, H. W.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lambton, Viscount

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Bennett, Sir William (Woodside)

Fort, R.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Foster, John

Leather, E. H. C.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

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

Bishop, F. P.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe & Lonsdale)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Black, C. W.

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

Lindsay, Martin

Boothby, Sir Robert

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Llewellyn, D. T.

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

Glover, D.

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

Boyle, Sir Edward

Godber, J. B.

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

Braine, B. R.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Gough, C. F. H.

Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

Gower, H. R.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

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

Graham, Sir Fergus

Longden, Gilbert

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Bullard, D. G.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

McAdden, S. J.

Burden, F. F. A.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

Hay, John

McKibbin, A. J.

Campbell, Sir David

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)

Carr, Robert

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Cary, Sir Robert

Heath, Edward

Mcclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Channon, H.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Cole, Norman

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Colegate, Sir Arthur

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

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

Hollis, M. C.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hope, Lord John

Marples, A. E.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Horobin, Sir Ian

Maude, Angus

1946

1947

Maudling, R.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

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

Ramsden, J, E.

Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Rayner, Brig. R.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Redmayne, M.

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Molson, A. H. E.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Remnant, Hon. P.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Renton, D. L. M.

Teeling, W.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Robertson, Sir David

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

Neave, Airey

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. P. (M'nm'th)

Nicholls, Harmar

Robson-Brown, W.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Touche, Sir Gordon

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Roper, Sir Harold

Turner, H. F. L.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Turton, R. H.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Russell, R. S.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Nugent, G. R. H.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Vane, W. M. F.

Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Vosper, D. F.

Oakshott, H. D.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Odey, G. W.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'le'bne)

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

Scott, Sir Donald

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Wall, Major Patrick

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Sharples, Maj. R. C.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Shepherd, William

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbr'gh, W.)

Watkinson, H. A.

Osborne, C.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Webbe, Sir H. (L'nd'n & Westm'r)

Page, R. G.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Wellwood, W.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Soames, Capt. C.

Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)

Perkins, Sir Robert

Spearman, A. C. M.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Speir, R. M.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Peyton, J. W. W.

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

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (K'ns'gt'n, S.)

Wills, G.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Pitman, I. J.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Wood, Hon. R.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Woollam, John Victor

Powell, J. Enoch

Steward, William (Woolwich, W.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Stewart, Henderson, (Fife, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Sir Cedric Drewe and

Profumo, J. D.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Major Studholme.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Proposed words there added.
Resolved,
That this House, pending a satisfactory result of the intensive efforts which are being
1948
made to achieve a comprehensive scheme of disarmament, welcomes Her Majesty's Government's decision to continue and expand research in this country on the medical and biological aspects of nuclear energy, and to collaborate by every practical means with those countries with whom arrangements already exist and with such others as can usefully be brought into consultation.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [By Order]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
7.9 p.m.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."

When a Private Bill is presented by a local authority, naturally it is necessary that it should be considered long and anxiously before it is called in question on the Floor of the House. If, as a result of such careful scrutiny, it is shown that challenge to the Measure is desirable in the public interest, then the duty is the greater by reason of the size and importance of the authority. The London County Council is, of course, a great local authority and one which we all respect.
The Bill contains six parts, 41 Clauses and three Schedules. It is only in respect of three Clauses that a specific challenge is made. I do not say that some of the other Clauses may not be other than impeccable, but the specific challenge is restricted to three Clauses which raise clear points of general principle. Two of the Clauses, Clauses 24 and 26, are in Part V, which deals with public health. The third Clause is in Part VI, which is the miscellaneous part, and this Clause, in the view of my hon. Friends and myself, is the most undesirable of the three. It will not come as any matter of surprise to the House that the most objectionable Clause should figure in the part of the Bill which is labelled "Miscellaneous," because that is not seldom so.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of order. It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if you would indicate whether you are proposing to deal at the moment merely with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). It appeared that the hon. Member was also speaking about the three Clauses which he has specifically mentioned in the Instructions. Would it be possible to discuss the three Instructions at the same time as the Amendment, or is
1950
it your intention that we should have four separate debates?
Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) to move his Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. That places before the House the whole of the contents of the Bill. It is open to hon. Members to pay particular attention to any features even though they are covered by the subsequent Instructions, which, of course, cannot come before the House until the Bill has been read a Second time. However, I should say that if the hon. Member for Hertford devotes his time on the Second Reading to the Instructions it will not be competent for him to make the same speech again on the Instructions.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I was hoping to avoid trespassing on the indulgence of the House, Mr. Speaker, and to make my case with regard to the Instructions in my speech on the Amendment in the hope that it might then be possible, if the question were taken generally and other hon. Members followed my example of self-denial, not to have a protracted debate on the Instructions. I thought I was meeting your convenience and that of the House by adopting that method.
Mr. Speaker: The points to which the hon. Member draws specific attention, by the Instructions which he has placed on the Notice Paper, are in order on the Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: With regard to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, in view of what has been said, would it not be for the convenience of the House if the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) withdrew his Amendment for the rejection of the Bill and we proceeded immediately to a debate on the Instructions?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the course which the hon. Member for Hertford proposes to follow is the more convenient.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I was saying to the House that the third of the three Clauses to which specific exception is taken by my hon. Friends and myself is Clause 32, which is in Part VI of the Bill. It is concerned with the vexed question of the compulsory acquisition

1951
and use of land by public authorities. The first paragraph of subsection (1) reads:
"The Council may (with the consent of the Minister) lay out and develop any land within the county for the time being belonging to them and not required for the purpose for which it was acquired or has been subsequently appropriated and may on any such land erect and maintain houses shops offices warehouses and other buildings and construct sewer drain pave channel and kerb streets …"
There then follows a proviso, to which I will refer in a minute, and subsection (2), to which I need not refer.
As will be seen from those words, Clause 32 does not confer new powers of compulsory acquisition in law on the London County Council, but it gives a wider general power to develop commercially sites which are acquired for noncommercial purposes than exists or is bestowed in any other public general Act, and to that my hon. Friends and I have three main objections.
The first objection is that the Clause puts a profit motive into the compulsory acquisition of land by enabling the London County Council to treat surplus land as a means of swelling revenue. The second objection is that it puts the London County Council, as a local authority, into business as a commercial developer of offices, shops and warehouses, with the possible implications of increased staff and so on necessary for those activities. The third objection is that it provides a standing temptation to the London County Council to over-estimate the amount of land required for statutory purposes in compulsory purchase orders in order to have the possibility of revenue from surplus land which remains over when the actual statutory purposes have been met.
I think that the principle governing one's approach to these matters of compulsory acquisition should be this. My hon. Friends and I fully concede that compulsory acquisition is a necessary power and provision for certain defined statutory purposes, but at the same time we consider that it is desirable and important to limit its scope to the essential minimum, more particularly as now the procedure for compulsory purchase of land by the promotion of Private Bills is rare and has very largely been superseded by the compulsory purchase order, which, in broad effect, is not really subject to Parliamentary control and has a very
1952
limited and technical right of access to the courts. For these reasons, it is obviously desirable that these powers should be carefully scrutinised and kept to a reasonable minimum.
That principle is especially important for this reason. Once a compulsory purchase order is confirmed and notice to treat is given, there is no means by which an owner of land can legally insist on the recovery of that part of his land which has been taken under statutory powers but is actually surplus to requirements.
It is, of course, obvious—I want to be reasonable about this—that a local authority cannot in all cases exactly assess and define the precise area of land which it will require for the execution of a statutory purpose, and land may turn out subsequently—it often does—not to be needed for the statutory purpose for which it has been acquired. As the House will appreciate, the public law provides for this situation by giving a local authority in those circumstances power to appropriate such surplus land to another statutory purpose for which there is a need or to dispose of land which is surplus to its requirements.
The position of London in regard to the general law is broadly the same as the rest of the country. It is true that it is governed by a different Act, but the effect of the provisions is generally the same. The position in London is governed by Sections 106 to 108 of the London Government Act, 1939. In the country as a whole the position is governed by Sections 163 to 165 of the Local Government Act, 1933. I will not weary the House with a recital of those provisions, but the House will, I hope, take it from me that they are virtually identical in effect. Section 106 of the London Government Act gives power to appropriate certain land to other statutory purposes, Section 107 gives power to lease land which is surplus, and Section 108 gives power to sell or exchange surplus land. In my submission, these powers are, or should be, enough. The general powers correspond very nearly in London to what obtains under the Local Government Act, and there is and must be a heavy onus on any authority which comes to Parliament to seek powers over and above that.
It is right that I should refer for a moment or two to the proviso of Clause

1953
32 of the Bill to which I said I would return. The proviso reads:
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to land acquired by the Council under section 38 or section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or to land appropriated by them for the purposes for which land can be acquired under those sections."
Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act gives powers of compulsory acquisition to a local authority in certain specified cases. I do not think that the House need trouble about Section 40, which merely extends that to acquisition by agreement for the same purpose.
Section 38 gives power of compulsory acquisition, which is in order to secure appropriate redevelopment in areas of comprehensive development and, secondly, to secure the use of land in the manner proposed by the development plan. It is quite true that Sections 19 and 20 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which are now incorporated in the Eleventh Schedule of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, give local authorities power to develop land for non-statutory purposes in those two cases under Section 38. It may well be said that there is here an analogy and that because a public general Act has given these powers in respect of this sort of land, there should be no objection to giving this very wide power in this private Bill.
To that I say: there is no real analogy between these two cases for the following reasons. The first is that the powers of Section 38 are limited in scope and only obtain where certain considerations apply. The areas of comprehensive development are, in the main, areas of extensive war damage. The power to secure the use in the manner proposed by the plan is the sort of final sanction of town planning very rarely encountered in practice. Section 38 is not dealing with surplus land, but with land which has been considered in regard to the development plan and of which the Minister, after inquiry, has expressed himself as being satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of appropriate comprehensive redevelopment. The third reason is that Section 19 (6) of the 1944 Act gives a right of pre-emption in the case of disposal of land to people who are living or carrying on business thereat, and that again is a safeguard not reproduced in this Private Bill.
Therefore, I submit that Sections 19 to 20 of the Town and Country Planning
1954
Act, 1944, do not constitute an analogy, precedent or argument for the powers sought in Clause 32 of this Bill, because they provide special powers for special purposes with special safeguards, whereas here a general power is sought without those safeguards.
I want to make a very brief reference to Clauses 24 and 26. I will be very brief, because, at any rate in my view, although others of my hon. Friends may not take the same view, the point of principle here is not so important as with Clause 32.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Before the hon. Member leaves Clause 32, will he not agree that the power sought to be exercised under this Clause will be exercised with the consent and approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government? I do not think that he made that as clear as he should have done.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member does not think that I made that clear. I did hon. Members the compliment of assuming, when I read out the provisions of the Clause, including the words "with the consent of the Minister," that that would make some suitable impact on their minds. If it did not, may I make it clear? It is quite right, as the hon. and gallant Member said in his helpful intervention, that it is subject to the consent of the Minister, but, nevertheless, my argument stands.
With Clauses 24 and 26, as I was saying, the point, although important, is not of such basic importance as that of Clause 32 with which I have been dealing. Nevertheless, these two Clauses constitute a departure from the general law in that they lessen and limit the right and power of a house owner to remedy defects himself by carrying out works at his own expense.
Mr. Walter Edwards: Does the hon. Member agree that the slums should be left as they are when the house owners are not doing anything at all?
Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Member will look at the Public Health Act, 1936, at or about Section 219, he will see that there is provision for all these things—and expensive provision—under public health law. Nobody is seeking to go back on that. We are here on a comparatively narrow point. It is that these Clauses in substance, or to some extent,

1955
take away the right of the owner to execute the works at his own expense.
Mr. C. W. Key Mr. C. W. Key (Poplar) indicated dissent.
Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Member shakes his head, but I have not finished. I will deal with the Clause in a little more detail in a moment. Both Clauses to some extent take away or diminish the right of the owner to remedy defects at his own expense and impose upon him the necessity and liability of being billed for it by the local authority. Such is the way of local authorities, unfortunately, very often, that the remedy may be more expensive than would be the case with the private householder.
It is, of course, quite true that there is a distinction between the provisions of these two Clauses. Clause 24 takes away the opportunity of the owner to remedy defects himself at his own expense in all cases where the work costs less than £250. That is the vast majority of cases
Mr. Key: Would it not be right and fair to say first of all that this happens only if the owner does not do it within a specified period? It does not take away any power. All that happens is that if he does not do it within the appropriate time, the local authority may do it. It is right to put that before the House.
Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, but at that stage, under the existing law, he is able to remedy those defects himself if he so prefers. That right has now been taken from him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—if the cost is less than £250. [Hon. Members: "No."] It is contained in Clause 24 (2), which says:
"If upon an inspection being made under Section 40 of the Act of 1936 any drain (not being a disused drain) appears to be in bad order and condition or to require cleansing or repair and the borough council by whom or on whose behalf the inspection was carried out are of opinion that the cost of carrying out such works as they consider necessary for putting the drain in proper order and condition or for cleansing or repairing the drain (as the case may require) will not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds the borough council (in lieu of serving such notice as is referred to in subsection (4) of the said section 40)"—
that is the point that I am on—
"may (after giving not less than seven days' notice to the owner and occupier of the premises in respect of which the inspection
1956
was made) carry out such work and (subject to the provisions of this section) recover from such owner or occupier the expenses incurred by them in so doing so far as they do not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds."
That is a departure from the general law of Section 40 of the Public Health Act, 1936. If there is a case for making the Amendment, it might well be that the figure should be a good deal less than £250, which is so high as to catch virtually all cases.
Clause 26 (2) constitutes a deviation from the existing law, in that it fastens on the owner a new liability of serving a counter-notice if he wishes to remedy the defect himself. It may be that the London County Council can show a case for altering the procedure in regard to these Clauses and that there is a case for a more speedy procedure in regard to the Clauses. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I say that it may be, but we have not yet heard a case. No doubt it will be deployed and we shall be able to consider it. In any event, the minimum figure in Clause 24 looks very high. Even in a small way these are encroachments on the right of the individual and should not be lightly granted by Parliament, or without reasonable excuse.
That is all I intend to say on Clauses 24 and 26. I go on to Clause 32 and to the main objection that we make to the Bill. It is not an academic objection. I understand that at the present time the Council holds a large amount of property surplus to its statutory local government requirements. The House may be told, as no doubt is the case, that other local authorities have the same or a similar Clause and that it is a model Clause deep-rooted in the antiquity of 20 years. The House should know whether this Clause has ever been fully debated in this House and whether the claims of expediency made on behalf of it have been weighed against the probable ill effects it will have in increasing compulsory acquisition.
This we do know: if this House does not make its protest against these provisions now it will be very difficult for us to make it at a subsequent time, because we shall be met with the comment in triumphant tones, "Ah, it must be all right, because the London County Council has it in its Bill."
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is a model Clause.
Mr. Walker-Smith: It may be, but we shall be interested to hear from the hon. and gallant Member whether the Clause has ever come under the scrutiny of the House of Commons.
At this time public sentiment is keenly anxious for a limitation of the powers and processes of compulsory acquisition to a reasonable and inescapable minimum. It is the proclaimed Government policy to hand back land compulsorily purchased by Government Departments which turns out to be surplus to their requirements. Our submission is that to put on the Statute Book at such a time and in such circumstances a Clause making it, in the case of the London County Council, easier and more attractive to retain such surplus land, is a paradox and a retrogression which should not commend itself to the House.
7.35 p.m.7.35 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to second the Amendment.
As I wish my speech to be reasonably brief, I shall confine it entirely to the main gravamen of the objection to the Bill, namely the provisions of the first part of Clause 32.
Before I come to the contents of the Clause, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that some of the normal safeguards that apply to Clauses of this kind inserted in Private Bills have not been applied to this Clause. Section 151 of the London Government Act, 1939, prescribes a fairly complicated procedure of resolutions of the Council and public notices which must be complied with for the promotion of a Bill by the London County Council. There is, however, an exception from these provisions of which the Council has availed itself in respect of this Clause.
I am not clear, incidentally, that the exception can apply simply to a Clause and not to a whole Bill; but be that as it may, the exception is contained in Section 150 of the London Government Act. It says that where a Bill is promoted
"for the purpose of:
(a) any work for the improvement of the county or public benefit of the inhabitants of the county,"
the safeguards prescribed in the next following section shall not apply. It seems at least debatable whether a Clause enabling the Council to develop
1958
surplus land instead of restoring it to private ownership is necessarily and always work coming within that description. At any rate, upon the ground that it is, the main safeguards applying to Clauses promoted in London legislation and embodied in Section 151 of the London Government Act, 1939, have not been applied to this Clause. Nor have the internal safeguards of the London County Council contained in Standing Order 214 of the London County Council for private legislation. The Standing Order says:
"No proposal involving the promotion by the Council of legislation …shall be made to the Council … later than its second meeting after the Whitsun Recess …except in regard to matters of urgency."
Clause 32 was first brought before the Council on 2nd November, six months after its resolution to promote almost all the rest of the Bill had been taken in the normal course. This was justified upon grounds of urgency. The General Purposes Committee, sitting on 18th October, decided that it was so urgent that the Clause should be included in the 1955 London County Council (General Powers) Bill that the normal safeguard to allow time for deliberation before a Clause is rushed into a Private Bill ought to be ignored.
The House is entitled therefore to view the Clause with even more care and scrutiny than usual, bearing in mind that two of the major customary safeguards, an internal safeguard and an external safeguard, have not applied to it.
I come now to the contents of the Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) drew attention to the proviso which excludes from the Clause the powers which the County Council already possesses under the Town and Country Planning Act to acquire compulsorily, and if need be develop, land in order to secure that it is used in conformity with the development plan. I must say that this proviso seems to me to be the strongest possible argument against the Clause. It is an overt recognition of the fact that, wherever the use of land by the council is necessary to secure development in accordance with the development plan as part of a comprehensive scheme, the Council has the powers already. So, ex hypothesi, power is now being sought where it is notnecessary in order to secure conformity with the development plan.

1959
I know that many hon. Members will have in their hands a paper produced by the solicitor to the London County Council. He refers to this proviso in the following very significant terms. He says:
"There are cases, however, where it would not be possible under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to use land in the Council's ownership for such purposes"—
Then follow the significant words:
"now the Development Plan has been approved, and that is one major reason why the Council wishes to be armed with the powers of this Clause, so that any proper case can be dealt with on its merits, and need not be dealt with otherwise for some purely technical reason."
The idea behind this Clause, therefore, is that after we have gone through the whole procedure of approving by complicated stages the development plan for London, after we have armed the County Council by a public general Act with the necessary powers to secure conformity with that development plan, the County Council can still come later and say whenever it thinks fit: "This was not in the development plan, we did not at the time the development plan was drawn up think it necessary to have this particular power in regard to this particular land; but we have changed our minds and think so now." It seems to me that the very existence of that proviso calls in question the need for the subsection.
Recognising, as we must, that this use by the council of surplus land is not for the purpose of securing conformity with the general development plan but is ad hoc use in a particular case, let us look at the arguments which the Solicitor advances. He says:
"The most satisfactory method of dealing with any surplus land belonging to the Council must, of course, depend on the circumstances of each particular case, but the Council considers that both from the point of view of the financial advantage to the Council and the ratepayers of London and from the point of view of securing the proper economic planning and development of a site, it would often be advantageous for the development to be carried out by the Council itself rather than that the Council should be compelled to sell or lease the land to a private developer."
There is a well-known and deep difference of opinion between the two sides of this House as to whether a local authority is likely to promote the financial advantage of itself and of the ratepayers by undertaking commercial development. That, I think, can be treated as a debat-
1960
able matter. It can also be regarded as a matter of difference between the two sides of this House whether, apart from the development plan, apart from the planning powers of local authorities, development by a local authority of a particular site is necessarily—or even often—the way to secure the best economic use and development of that land. It will normally, subject to the overriding pattern of the development plan, be by means of the market and commercial enterprise and the best economic development will be secured.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I think this is the sort of problem to which the House might address its mind. Supposing the local authority has land earmarked for a particular purpose and it then becomes quite clear that, for the original purpose, the land is not required—and the best-laid plans, human factors being what they are, do not always in every particular work out as originally planned—but the Council ultimately wants the land, it may be for an extension of some activity. Is the hon. Member suggesting that, in the meantime, the Council should lose control of the land because it may not want it for 10 or 15 years?
Mr. Powell: No. Supposing land is acquired for housing and is then found not to be required for that purpose but is expected to be required for educational use in five or 10 years, there is nothing to prevent the Council from appropriating it to that use whenever it wishes to do so. If it so appropriates it, the land is taken outside the scope of the Clause.
Mr. Skeffington: But it remains sterile. That is the point.
Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Member suggesting that if the land is to be required in five or 10 years' time the County Council should develop it commercially with
"… houses shops offices warehouses and other buildings …"
That is the power in this Clause.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) made the point, quite rightly, that this power of development of surplus land by the council cannot be exercised without the Minister's consent; but, of course, before conferring the power at all, Parliament must first satisfy itself that that power is

1961
necessary and desirable—whether or not the Minister's consent is to be required. Indeed, there is no point in inserting the requirement of the Minister's consent, if one does not consider that this power should properly be exercised at all. Therefore, for hon. Members who believe that this Clause is misconceived and that there is no justification for it in principle, the fact that it can only be exercised with the Minister's consent is of no assistance.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton also referred in an interjection to the fact that the Clause is a model Clause; that is to say, one which has been so frequently inserted in Private Bills that for the sake of securing uniformity of drafting it has been published in a collection of model Clauses under the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman of Committees. Nevertheless, in 1955, I think that we are entitled when confronted with this Clause to look on it at its face value. After all, public policy, and indeed public opinion, on these matters does change from time to time, and we in this House are supposed to reflect those changes in policy and opinion and have a right to take them into account in considering the provisions of Private Bill legislation.
It is much less than a year since the Government established, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford reminded us, a new principle and a firm principle in regard to land compulsorily acquired by a Government Department. For the establishment of that principle, a respected and well loved member of this party sacrificed his office. Let me remind the House what were the terms of that Government decision. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) said:
"The Government have decided that where agricultural land"—
he was referring specifically in this case to agricultural land:
"which was acquired compulsorily or under threat of compulsion"—
and, of course, all land acquired by a local authority in the exercise of its statutory powers is acquired under threat of compulsion, if not acquired compulsorily:
"is no longer wanted by the original acquiring Department or immediately by any other Government Department possessing compulsory purchase powers for a purpose for which the use of those powers would be justified, then
1962
the land will be sold. This means that transfers of such land from one Government Department to another will not be made in future unless at the time of transfer the receiving Department could and would have bought the land compulsorily if it had been in private ownership."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July. 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1190.]
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) will see that the rule established by the Government is even stricter and narrower than that which I ask should be insisted upon in the case of the London County Council.
I suggest that it would be wrong for this House, which has approved a Government decision that land compulsorily acquired by a Government Department for one purpose and not immediately required by another Department for another similar purpose should be sold, to confer upon a local authority the power to retain and use commercially land surplus to its requirements for its statutory duties. For that reason, I think the House would be justified in marking its dissatisfaction with the inclusion of Clause 32.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. Walter Edwards: I presume that the matter under discussion at present is the complete defeat of the Bill. Earlier speakers have referred to various Acts, but I am sure they will have to agree that the Amendment under discussion proposes that the whole of the Clauses shall not be accepted, despite the fact that they have referred only to Clauses 24, 26 and 32.
As a member of my local authority, I want to say that the attitude of the two hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Amendment is typical of the attitude of the Tory Party. It is typical of the Tory Party to support the landlords against the interests of the tenants of slum dwellings. In my own borough we sometimes find it extremely difficult even to trace a landlord in order to serve a notice on him, and even after we have traced him it is extremely difficult to ensure that the people living in slum property can have suitable drains in that property.
I should like to know whether any of the sponsors of these Amendments have ever lived in slum property. I happen to be one who has. It is noteworthy that no Conservative Member who has

1963
associated himself with these Amendments represents a London constituency.
What is wrong with Clause 24? If a person is living in a slum house—and there are still plenty of them—why should not the local authority get on with the job of clearing the drains if the landlord does not do so and if previous Acts of Parliament allow the landlord so much time before he can be compelled to take action?
What is wrong with Clause 26, which deals with defective premises? If the landlord is not doing his duty by the tenants, surely somebody has to make him do it. The only bodies in this country who can do this are the local authorities. The trouble is that the people behind this opposition are afraid of the local authorities because there happen to be so many Labour local authorities. They would never have dreamed of doing this sort of thing years ago, when there were few Labour local authorities.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has my hon. Friend taken note of the fact that not a single hon. Member opposite who has put his name to any of the Amendments is a Member representing a London constituency?
Mr. Edwards: Yes, I have already referred to that fact. I am very glad that the Chairman of the 1922 Committee has declared the policy of the Tory Party. Obviously, the policy is: landlord first and slum tenant last.
Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Member will be good enough to refer to Clause 24 (2) he will see that it refers to the occupier as well as to the owner. He will perhaps not be aware—although perhaps other of his hon. Friends can so inform him—that there is a definition of "owner" for Public Health Act purposes which excludes a ground landlord if there is an intermediate lessor. In other words, the long-term absentee landlord whom the hon. Gentleman seems to be aiming at is not within the provision of "owner" in any event.
Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman can come out with his legal jargon as much as he likes, but the fact is that the sole purpose of the London County Council in bringing this Bill before the House is to make conditions better for those who are living in very bad conditions. The
1964
purpose of the two main Clauses, Clauses 24 and 26, is to benefit the health of those who still have to endure those bad conditions.
In Clause 32, we again have the landlordism of the Tory party as against public interest. What is wrong if a local authority does retain property which has been acquired by compulsory purchase in the interests of the people in that local authority area? The difference between us is that when a local authority acquires property, it does so in the interests of the people in its area, as a service and not at a profit, whereas hon. Members opposite prefer profit to service. It is clear that hon. Members opposite are more and more determined to do all they possibly can to support private profit and landlordism as against the improvement of slum conditions in which so many people live.
I challenge hon. Members opposite to divide the House on Clauses 24 and 26. I hope they do. In the county council elections and in the General Election, which, we understand, will take place in the near future, it would let the people know exactly where the Tory Party stands. It has recently taken the line of saying that it more or less agrees with what the Labour Party has done, but there is a big gulf between us, and that gulf is showing itself tonight in the case of those living in slum conditions.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I wish to address my remarks to what has been said about Clauses 24 and 26. We should notice at the outset that these Clauses can worry only a landlord who has already to some extent neglected his responsibilities. A landlord who is fully cognisant of his responsibilities does not wait for the sanitary inspector to be called in because a drain is defective or the roof is leaking; he acts immediately on the tenant's complaint. If the Clause comes into operation, there has, therefore, already been some degree of neglect, whether wilful or unavoidable, on the part of the landlord.
What has worried tenants for a long time is that even when events have reached such a pitch that the public authority is intervening, under the present law, and in the circumstances which have prevailed since the war, there is, from the tenant's point of view, a very long delay.

1965
In the case of a stopped-up or defective drain, from the time when the public authority has begun to take the matter in hand it will probably be at least three weeks before the repair is effected. In the case of other defects, such as a leaky roof, the delay may be at least three months.
This situation has been becoming more acute in recent years because of two difficulties. First, there is difficulty in some cases in finding the landlord. I assure the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) that that applies in the matter which we are discussing and applies only too frequently, as he would know if he had a constituency like mine or those of many of my hon. Friends. Even when the landlord is found, he often pleads that, for one reason or another, he cannot do the necessary work. The extent to which legal delays can be spun out is of very great concern to tenants.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: Is it not a fact that when these landlords are found they are often fictitious people, worse than "phoney" companies, and that we cannot serve notice on them because, in law, they do not exist?
Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. They are the kind of corporation which has neither body to be kicked nor soul to be damned.
The reason why these Clauses are necessary, and why Clauses like them have appeared in a number of local Acts, is that in recent years we have been faced with the practical breakdown of the private landlord system, which has been incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities which ought to go with the ownership of house property. To deal with this situation these Clauses make quite modest and reasonable proposals—that if there is a stopped-up drain, then, from the time the public authority takes the matter in hand, it must be attended to within 48 hours—and about time, too; if it is not a stopped-up but a defective drain, the time is seven days; and if it is another defect, then from the time the public authority takes the matter in hand the landlord is still given nine days in which he can get to work. Only after that is the public authority empowered to do the work at its own expense.
At the end of all that, if it does the work itself and tries to recover the expenses, it is still open to the landlord
1966
to plead in court in his defence that it was not reasonable for him to have been asked to do the work or that he was proceeding with it himself with all reasonable expedition.
These are quite modest and reasonable proposals for dealing with a serious matter. The hon. Member for Hertford made the astounding statement that these Clauses limit the power of the landlord to do the repairs himself. They do not limit or restrict that power in any way. Indeed, they encourage him to use that power and to use it quickly. What these Clauses limit is not the landlord's power to do the repairs, but the landlord's power to neglect the repairs—and a good thing, too.
Of old and for many centuries the law of this country was made exclusively by owners of property and, in consequence, it still bears the stamp of law made by property-owners, which is much more tender to the ownership of property than to the lives and happiness of individuals. There are certain kinds of property ownership which can be treated as private. If I choose to keep the papers on my desk untidily, that is nobody's business but mine. If I wear my clothes untidily, although convention may reprobate me, the law must not interfere. But when we speak of property such as houses, particularly houses in which other people live, the question of how I discharge my duties as a property owner is not merely a private matter but is a social matter affecting the lives and happiness of other people.
Since this country became a democracy—and that is quite a recent development—much of our law has been beginning to pay more and more attention to life and happiness as against the claims of mere property, and these Clauses are a modest example of that very necessary and desirable development.
The hon. Member for Hertford said that people were becoming very alarmed about the public acquisition of land. I must say that the number of my constituents who are alarmed that some public authority will take away their landed estates from them is quite limited, but what a great many of them are alarmed about is the length of time it takes to get ordinary, decent repairs done to their houses. In the years after the war there were inevitable reasons which we had to accept, such as a shortage of labour and

1967
materials, but the position has not improved as it ought to have improved now that we are ten years after the end of the war.
If Londoners, many of whom are worried about the law's delay in this matter at present, were to learn that the House, at the instigation of certain Conservative hon. Members, had interfered with a very necessary and useful Measure which will help to get decent living conditions for them a little sooner, they would be extremely indignant and would take the first opportunity of showing their indignation.
8.7 p.m.
Mr. John Parker: I want to make it clear that in supporting the Amendment I do not agree with any of the arguments advanced so far in its support. My main criticism of the Bill is not what is in it but what is not in it.
In a London County Council (General Powers) Bill provision should be made for the handing over of out-county L.C.C. estates, at least those built more than ten years ago, to the local authorities on the spot, and it is because the Bill does not include powers for making such a transfer, either now or in the future, that I criticise it.
Many of us who represent out-county L.C.C. estates have very big housing grievances amongst our constituents, and in Dagenham I have particularly large grievances, because nearly two-thirds of the houses in my constituency belong either to the L.C.C. or to another outside authority, West Ham Council. In fact, over 17,000 houses out of 30,000 belong to the L.C.C.
That produces a very serious position in a borough such as mine, because there is hardly any room for the building of new houses in the borough. We have room for perhaps 2,000 more, and the last thousand of those which can be built by the borough council have now been started. At the same time, we have a housing waiting list of over 4,300 families.
Most of the houses on the L.C.C. estate in my constituency were built between 1925 and 1933, twenty to thirty years ago. When vacancies occur on that estate, the L.C.C.'s policy is that it gives tenancies to the eldest son or daughter living in a house when parents die or become too
1968
old to carry on, but when complete vacancies occur on the estate they are given to people brought in from London and not to people who have lived and grown up in the area.
A very large number of vacancies are now occurring in the area. In 1953, there were 461 and, in 1954, 374. Some of these vacancies arise owing to exchanges between tenants of L.C.C. houses in Dagenham and elsewhere, but our local civic centre estimates that the total number of true vacancies occurring on the L.C.C. estates in Dagenham in any one year is about 270. That is quite a large number of houses falling vacant in a year and which might be allocated to local people. The result of filling these vacancies with people from the L.C.C. area is that local people are forced out of the borough.
After the war the sons and daughters of L.C.C. tenants were placed on the L.C.C. list and houses on the new L.C.C. estates were frequently filled in this way. As the list for London grew, however, that concession was cancelled and was replaced by another by which 50 houses were allocated yearly by the L.C.C. to Dagenham Borough Council in return for a financial contribution. Some houses were thus made available, but it was on estates outside Dagenham. A little time ago that concession was also cancelled, but so great has been the feeling in the area that it has been renewed for a year. Thus, 50 houses are now made available and where elderly tenants are transferred to smaller accommodation provided by the Dagenham council their houses are also made available for Dagenham people. I understand that some of the 50 will be allocated in Dagenham, but a large number of them will be on estates outside Dagenham.
We certainly very much welcome the renewal of this concession which is a very real concession, but I should like to point out the social consequences of this policy as a whole. It means that it is extraordinarily difficult to build up community life in a new town if first people are brought in and then practically the whole next generation are forced out to another place. One can never build real community life in that place. That is our main criticism. The problem exists anywhere where there is an out-county estate which is fairly old and where the

1969
second generation is growing up, but it is a particularly serious grievance in a town like Dagenham, where two-thirds of the houses are owned by an outside authority and people are still brought in from the owning area.
We take the view that a solution should be found on the lines adopted for the new towns. Very sensibly indeed, in a new town as it grows up and becomes a running concern property is transferred to the local borough council concerned. Some such provision should be made for out-county L.C.C. estates. From the national point of view the same position arises over out-county estates in other parts of the country. Certainly, financial difficulties would arise and they would be particularly large in the case of a borough like Dagenham, where so many of the houses belong to another authority. We feel that the financial problem should be fully investigated and discussed round the table preferably between the L.C.C. and all the local authorities concerned and some attempt should be made to thrash out a solution.
I would offer a temporary solution here and now. It would be a very good idea if all the houses on the L.C.C. estates as they became vacant were handed over to the local authority to fill the vacancies and make arrangements to purchase the houses for their own ownership. That would mean a gradual transfer of estates from the L.C.C. to the local borough council concerned.
Mr. W. R. Williams: Does that mean that the L.C.C. would continue to build houses for its own people only to see, at the end of a certain period, the transfer of those houses to some other authority?
Mr. Parker: Certainly, yes. That is what the L.C.C. is proposing when collaborating with expanded towns as it develops new estates there. It is certainly wrong that a large part of another borough should continue to remain a property of the L.C.C. or any other outside local authority for many years after it is established. I think that ten years is a reasonable period in which the building authority should continue to fill the vacancies with people from the original area. After that, when people locally are growing up and want houses for themselves, it becomes reasonable to transfer
1970
on the lines I have suggested. I hope that, sooner or later, we may have a discussion on the lines I have suggested or on wider lines.
Growing up in Dagenham and on other out-county estates there is a feeling that we are no longer a colony of the L.C.C. and do not want to be treated any longer as a colony. In a lesser degree it is the same problem which arose in regard to Canada and Australia and other countries which, while wishing to remain on friendly terms with the Mother Country, wanted to run their own affairs. We do not want to create the feeling which led to the Boston Tea Party. We want to be masters in our own house and we should like to reach an agreement with the L.C.C. for a friendly settlement of this problem and to take over their estates in due course.
I therefore hope that discussions will take place, if not under this Bill then in a future general powers Bill, to enable the L.C.C. to transfer out-county estates in due course to the local authority concerned.
8.17 p.m.
Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I do hope that the House will support the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) in what he has said. I remember meeting him for the first time on a Sunday night in June, 1945, when we were opponents in the General Election of that time. Then he beat me by 26,000 votes, but now we find ourselves supporting each other on a serious problem affecting our constituencies.
The Becontree Ward, in my division, has 10,000 people, most of whom were transferred by the L.C.C. from various parts of London. We have a serious housing problem, with about 3,000 people still on the housing list. Practically the whole of our land is absorbed, yet we are faced with the very serious problem caused by the L.C.C. continuing to feed into the Becontree area people from outside the borough. That is a situation which Ilford Borough Council cannot tolerate and, as the hon. Member for Dagenham said neither can the Borough of Dagenham tolerate it. This is a question which must be faced by the House in the very near future if a solution is to be found.
Recently, the L.C.C. decided that it could accept no responsibility for housing the sons and daughters of existing tenants

1971
and that responsibility, when they married, must devolve on the authority in whose area they live. It is obvious what happens; the son or daughter gets married or the family moves away and, instead of Ilford Council, Dagenham Council, or any other borough council which has L.C.C. out-district estates, being able to feed into the empty properties people from its own housing list, it suddenly finds itself confronted with an influx of people from the London County Council area, whether from Bermondsey, Stepney, or any other London borough.
I know that members of the London County Council have a very serious problem in housing their own people. No one would seek to minimise the difficulties under which they operate, but it is really no help to the country if, in solving their problems, they impose further problems on boroughs outside the area of London County Council.
A solution to this problem must be found, and found fairly quickly. I do not know whether the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Dagenham would prove to be the best methods of dealing with it, but, certainly, some machinery must be evolved by consultation whereby a local authority can acquire the housing estates which have been developed by the London County Council within that local authority's boundaries. I mean that the machinery for the acquisition should be on a proper financial basis. I am not suggesting that there should be expropriation or anything like that. Alternatively, it should be within the power of the local authority, which is, after all, the housing authority within its own boundaries, to deal with London County Council property within its boundaries when it becomes vacant.
Because of the policy being adopted by the London County Council, one could almost say the intransigent attitude of the Council in this matter, the housing problem in Ilford, indeed in Dagenham and Barking and in other areas, can never be solved. The London County Council may solve its own housing problem, but it is creating severe problems for boroughs in the county of Essex and elsewhere.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman seek to impose the same sort of restriction or liability upon
1972
privately built housing estates around London?
Squadron Leader Cooper: So far as I know the problem is not the same. It may be the same to some minor degree, but we are not dealing with questions of 20 or 30 houses which may be developed by a private speculative builder or contractor. We are dealing with thousands of houses. I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) fully appreciates the problem in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham. It has an electorate, I believe, of about 70,000, and two-thirds of all the houses in it are owned by the London County Council. That is a housing problem which the Dagenham Council finds insuperable.
We have our own problems in Ilford which arise from the same attitude and policy adopted by the London County Council. To those members of the Council who are also Members of this House, I say that there is no desire on the part of boroughs such as Dagenham and Ilford to expropriate property which the London County Council has developed in its own or other areas, but there is an earnest desire on the part of those boroughs to seek negotiations with the Council by which a solution of this difficult problem can be reached. That is all we ask at present, and I submit that, in the circumstances in which we live, it is not asking too much.
8.23 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: Apart from the two very interesting speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper), I should not have thought that this was an appropriate or wisely chosen time for the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to move their Amendment.
County Council elections are taking place, and it would not be unreasonable to say, after listening to this debate, that Conservative candidates, in addition to standing for Conservative Party principles as enumerated by the present Prime Minister when he was a Liberal, such as

1973
the principle of patriotism by the Imperial pint, and so on, they also stand for the preservation for as long as possible of bad or defective drains, on the sacred principle that we must not interfere with the owners' rights to deal or not to deal with them, otherwise than through the elaborate procedure under the Act of 1936. I am quite certain that this House and the people of the County of London—I should have thought the public as a whole—can give a pretty clear answer to the arguments we have heard from the benches opposite tonight.
It is very significant that with only one exception, I see no Conservative Member of Parliament here who represents a London constituency. I see one Conservative Member for a London constituency, but he, no doubt, has a majority so large that whatever happens, and whoever may be the Tory candidates in the L.C.C. election in the constituency, no very great difference can be made to that majority. Certainly, however, none of the Conservative Members for the London constituencies that can be described as marginal constituencies is to be seen here. We know that the town clerks of Hampstead, Westminster and Kensington have all asked their Members of Parliament, all Conservative, to support Clauses 24 and 26 of the Bill. It will be very interesting to see what happens should this matter unwisely be pushed to a Division, although I do not think it will be.
Mr. Albert Evans: Would that information apply also to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Brigadier Smyth), the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price)?
Mr. Skeffington: I regret to say that I cannot give my hon. Friend further confidential information of that kind, but I think that it may be likely that similar action was taken in these places, because this matter was discussed by a body which one would think the most appropriate to discuss it, the Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan Boroughs, and it was at the request of the Standing Joint Committee that Clauses 24 and 26 were inserted in the Bill. It was not at
1974
the request of the London County Council at all, although it is the London County Council which has been attacked by hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the Standing Joint Committee there was complete unanimity on this matter. Therefore, one would suppose that, whether those boroughs were Labour controlled or Tory controlled boroughs, at any rate they did not indulge in some of the academic arguments in favour of landlords failing to attend to drains that we have heard from Conservative Members here tonight. All honour to the Standing Joint Committee for that.
There is one matter which has not been referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the fact that they have not referred to it makes us on this side more suspicious than we should otherwise have been. It is that all the powers in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 24 and in Clause 26 have been given already to a large number of local authorities. For instance, the powers given in Clause 24 (1) to remedy stopped up drains were given to Slough, Crewe, Bradford, and West Bromwich in 1949. Leyton, Manchester, and Bristol Corporations and Eton Rural District Council got them in 1950. Sutton and Cheam and Worcester Corporations and all the local authorities in the West Riding and Nottinghamshire got them in 1951. Winchester, Leamington, Tottenham, Nottingham and Kingston-upon-Hull Corporations, the Fareham Urban District Council, and all the local authorities in Essex got them in 1952. Huddersfield Corporation, Belper Urban District Council and all the local authorities in Berkshire and Cheshire got them in 1953.
We on this side should be better able to believe in the sincerity of the arguments hon. Gentlemen opposite have advanced against these Clauses if they had developed them against any of those other authorities on any previous occasion, but I cannot discover a single case in which these present objections were made against those other local authorities by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
As to Clause 24 (2), dealing with the repair of drains and sewers, Wakefield got the power before the war, in 1938. Southend, West Bromwich, Bristol, Don-caster, Leyton, Sunderland, Sutton and Cheam, Worcester, Nottingham, Preston, Rochester and Winchester, amongst

1975
others, have all had that power since the war. But there has not been a single objection from hon. Members opposite even to the powers under Clause 24 (2). As to Clause 26, dealing with defective premises, 11 authorities have already been given these powers. They include Birmingham, Slough and Wolverhampton. No doubt the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, if he were here, would tell us what action he took when Wolverhampton received that power. It may be that he was not in the House in 1950. In that case, perhaps he could explain what action he would have taken.
Sutton and Cheam, and Worcester, in 1951, Tottenham, Nottingham and Preston in 1952, were also given these powers and not on one single occasion have we had-an objection from the other side of the House. Therefore, we are inclined to feel that the present opposition is because the Bill is presented by London County Council. Unfortunately, we still remember that ill-considered partisan action of the Conservative Government in 1934 when it refused loan sanction in the case of Waterloo Bridge. That was entirely a decision on political grounds.
Mr. David Weitzman: Can my hon. Friend say whether Hertford has these powers?
Mr. Skeffington: I cannot say.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that they have not.
Mr. Skeffington: We are dealing here with large urban centres and with progressive communities. We do not expect to have the same standards in the rural parts of the country, which in these, as in other matters, are comparatively backward.
Squadron Leader Cooper: Would the hon. Member not admit that Hertford County Council is perhaps the most progressive county authority in the matter of education?
Mr. Skeffington: We are not discussing education. I think that we should be out of order if we did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) has dealt fully with Clauses 24 and 26. It is, of
1976
course, true that great difficulty is experienced in tracing the owners in many of the areas which were subject to bad bombing and those which have much old property. The owners are either unwilling or, in some cases, unable to carry out the necessary repairs. The purpose of these two sections of Clause 24 is to speed up the time in which repairs should be effected to drains, water closets and pipes. The Clause does not alter the rights of the owner in any way. He will not be charged any more and he can go to court and challenge whether the procedure was right and whether it should be taken under these subsections or under other more leisurely powers.
We say that stopped-up drains are such a very serious matter—and the House has obviously agreed because it has given these powers in other cases—that they should be put right in 48 hours. We know the evil consequences that can flow from this elementary failure of sanitation, yet in 1955 we actually find some Tory Members who are opposing the provision of these powers. I have been greatly surprised. I must admit that some of my hon. Friends who say that a Tory never changes are much more correct in their estimate than I had hitherto thought they were.
Power is sought to deal with drains in bad order within seven days, instead of the present long procedure under which one has to serve notice and to wait for an appeal in the magistrates' court, which must take place in 21 days—and most authorities do not like to proceed until they have waited 21 days. Weeks go by when there is a defect which, apart from the nuisance and smell, may have serious consequences to the lives of men, women and children who live in the locality. Yet our attempt to obtain these powers is regarded as a solemn betrayal of some principle of landlordism. I hope that the House will come to an affirmative and quick decision on this matter tonight.
Mention has been made of the fact that a borough council can only carry out work on defective drains if the cost is not more than £250. I understand that in the negotiations which the County Council had with property owners this was the only point on which the property owners expressed any difficulty. It is a Committee point. If specific reasons were given that the £250 was too high, that matter

1977
could always be considered. Having regard to current costs, I would have thought that was a very reasonable sum. Whatever the expense, it is still subject to adjudication in the courts as to whether the borough council has acted correctly and, indeed, whether or not it should have used these powers or whether, if the matter was not sufficiently urgent, it should have been dealt with under the old 1936 public health procedure. It seems that at every turn the landlord is safeguarded in that respect. The great advantage is that where there is a remedy, the remedy will take place a little sooner. I am surprised that any one has opposed it.
With regard to Clause 32, which deals with the development of land by the Council, the arguments advanced were more in the nature of those which I should have expected to hear from the other side of the House. We heard some of those arguments in the debate on Friday when we were discussing the question of leasehold reform. It is important to realise what is the object of this Clause. The Clause does not authorise the L.C.C. itself to carry on any trade or business on the redeveloped site. The purpose of the Clause may be said to be twofold. I should have explained earlier that the powers sought by subsection (1) are not exercisable in respect of land which had been acquired or appropriated under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Under Section 20 of the 1944 Act, the Council already has powers to develop such land.
There are, however, cases in which it is not possible to deal with the land as the Council may require to do under the 1947 Act now the development plan has been approved, approving some other use of land. Cases are bound to arise in which something put in the development plan and approved is not going to work out exactly as intended. Fresh factors may have arisen, the population movement may have been different from those anticipated. There are all kinds of possibilities.
In this sort of case, the alternative to not having these powers is to try to get an amendment of the whole plan, which is a most costly, technical and lengthy process. I think that the hon. Member for Hertford knows only too well what the procedure would be to try to amend
1978
the development plan. Perhaps he does not want to see this alternative power given to the County Council because of its speed and ease compared with the technical difficulties now, which drive so many people to seek his very valuable advice and services.
The hon. Member knows only too well that to amend an approved development plan one has to advertise, give notice and have an inquiry. The matter has to go to the Minister, and there are various technical consequences in the form of orders before the plan can be amended. Is it suggested that the local authority, with public responsibility for carrying out a statutory duty, and also subject to the control and influence of public opinion, should not have an easier method of modifying the use of land than by having to comply with the whole of the technical processes I have described.
Another example is of land required for one purpose which is not needed immediately, but building can go on until required by the Council. The kind of practical example which could be given, although fortunately this was dealt with before the development plan went through, was the extension to the new London Sessions. In that case, there was surplus land which was not required for the Sessions, but it was thought desirable to put up a coroner's court, which was greatly needed. At the same time, instead of having the remainder of the land derelict, it was thought desirable to put offices on it which could ultimately be used by the Council, and which until they were so used would bring in valuable rent to the County Council. Why cannot that be done? It would not be sensible to sell small portions of that land, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West suggested, or to lease it.
Under the Landlord and Tenants Act, it might be very difficult in many cases for the County Council to get back land which it had leased in those circumstances. Consequently this power would mean that instead of the land being sterile, it would be remuneratively used; it would be valuable space wanted in the district for occupiers, and it would bring in revenue to the County Council. I would have thought that everyone would agree that this was a brilliant solution, because it would bring something in for

1979
the ratepayers. But no, this offends against the sacred canon that a public authority is going to get a little out of it, and, therefore, it is wrong and ought to go back to private enterprise. I hope again that the House will give very strong affirmative approval to what the London County Council wants to do on behalf of the citizens of London.
In this connection, I would point out that no less than 120 other authorities have got the actual power in Clauses 32. I may be wrong and will be challenged no doubt if I am, but I am not aware that on any one of those occasions hon. Gentlemen opposite objected to these 120 authorities getting this power. Why then should the London County Council be singled out? On 7th February Bills to give the local authorities of Crosby, Nuneaton and Sandown-Shanklin the powers which are in Clause 32 were given an unopposed Second Reading, and I think it is scandalous that exception should only be taken in the case of the London County Council. The people of London are entitled to draw their own conclusions from the speeches of the hon. Members for Hertford and Wolverhampton, Southwest.
8.42 p.m.
Sir Harold Webbe: As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) did me the honour of mentioning me especially, I feel I ought to say a word or two on this Bill although the case has been amply and completely made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell).
I find it difficult to follow the speech to which we have just listened. It was full of misunderstandings and mis-statements; indeed, the general argument first used in this debate by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) was that if two blacks do not make a white at least a hundred blacks do. That is nonsense. Because other authorities have been given these powers seems to me to be no reason whatever for denying the House the right to consider the request by the largest local authority to have these powers, as it already possesses a great deal of surplus
1980
land. Therefore, we are not legislating for the odd case.
Mr. Skeffington: That is a very valid argument, but the point I was making was why, on the occasions when the powers in Clause 32 were given to no fewer than 120 other authorities, no action was taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite to move an Amendment similar to the one moved by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith)?
Sir H. Webbe: I cannot answer for my hon. Friends. I can only say that, for my own part, I missed this particular Clause—[Hon. Members: "All the 120 of them?"] I am not ashamed in the least to say I do not know about every single thing that comes before this House. If hon. Members opposite claim that they do, then all I can do is compliment them on their assiduity. But I am quite well aware that Clauses 24 and 26 were inserted in the Bill at the request of the Standing Joint Committee of the London boroughs. I know that the authorities wish to have rather stronger powers than they possess at present to deal with this particular problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford was at pains to show—and I agree with him—that there is no vital question of principle involved in these two Clauses, at least not to any serious degree. But when proposals are brought before this House which, in fact, do take away from the rights of individual citizens, then it is our duty to look at them.
Whether the powers which the London County Council now seek are absolutely necessary for their purpose, I do not know. My own feeling is that this is a Committee point and I should be sorry if this Bill, after receiving a Second Reading, went to the Committee and that Committee were tied by a direction in regard to these two Clauses. It seems to be eminently a case where a discussion should take place between the promoters of the Bill and the objectors to it in order to arrive at a reasonable tightening up of local authority powers.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has looked at this one of the 120 instances where these powers were sought. Would

1981
he not give the House the benefit of his conclusions and say whether, having looked at them, he thinks that the Clauses are right and proper, instead of shelving his responsibility by saying that this is a Committee point?
Sir H. Webbe: I am quite willing to say what I think. In the first place, the powers are too tight. On the evidence given to me I agree that there is a case for giving the authority more effective powers which would enable it to act faster. However, my opinion is that the Bill goes too far. It is a matter which should be decided by the Committee, which will have the advantage of hearing counsel or spokesmen on both sides, and which can reach the conclusion, for example, as to whether £250 is the right figure.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington seemed to indicate that he would not die in the last ditch for £250. That is my own view. For the reasons already given, I think that £250 is too large a figure, but these points should be thrashed out in Committee.
Mr. M. Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—he is most generous in doing so—because I would like to get this clear. He is saying that these Clauses ought to be considered by the Committee. It is common ground that, if his Amendment is accepted, the Bill will not get to the Committee. Is the hon. Gentleman advising us to vote against the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) so that the Bill can go to the Committee?
Mr. Walker-Smith: Before my hon. Friend answers that question, may I put the following point to him? I opened on Clauses 24 and 26, as the House will recall, in an interrogatory way and not in the same way as I opened on Clause 32. Having listened carefully to the debate, and especially to what my hon. Friend, with his long record of service, has to say, may I say that on Clauses 24 and 26 I would not press the Amendments for the Instructions to the Committee.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order, order. I must remind the House that we are now discussing whether the Bill should be read a Second time.
Sir H. Webbe: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I have strayed beyond the bounds of order, but I have been following other speakers. As I understood the discussion on this formal Amendment, it was hoped that it would cover the ground to be covered later by the formal Amendments for Instructions to the Committee, with the understanding that there would not be further discussion on those Instructions.
I am glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford has said. It would be unfortunate, indeed wrong, if a point of this kind were dealt with by the House issuing Instructions to the Committee which, after all, will be much better able to reach a proper judgment than we can without having the advantage of hearing the cases argued at length. The hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) is quite right: if the House carries this Amendment, the Bill will not receive a Second Reading and will not go to a Committee. I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that the form in which this Amendment has been moved was a device to enable the debate to be on sensible lines without wasting the time of the House. I hope very much that there will not be any pressure by my hon. Friend to refuse the Bill a Second Reading. I hope it will go to Committee.
I should like to say a word or two about Clause 32. There, I agree entirely with what has been said. However many local authorities have powers of this description, none of them should have them. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said that there was no question of the London County Council going into business on the sites. There is not, of necessity; but there is very definitely the intention to give the authority power to go into the business of land development, and that is just as much a business as selling boots and shoes. There is no question whatever that if local authorities are given broadcast powers of this kind there will be a temptation to them to invest in land by trumping up some statutory need as a justification for acquiring it under compulsory powers and then lightheartedly turning it over to something else, using it not for some other statutory purpose, which they have the power to do without the Bill, but to enter into the business of land development.
This is where we find the political difference between hon. Members opposite

1983
and myself. I do not believe that the London County Council or any other authority is competent to enter into the business of land development. I have never seen anything to indicate that it could. All the years which I have spent on the London County Council have simply shown me, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, that the London County Council, like every other body of the kind, is quite incompetent to undertake trade. Whenever it touches it, it loses money. We have seen many instances in the last year of ratepayers' money being poured down the drain through the London County Council trying to carry out commercial operations. It is not competent to do it. It is not right that it should do it; it is not right that it should be vested with powers by this House to over-ride the private citizen in order to take the land out of his control and then enter into the business of land development.
Mr. Skeffington: Might I put two points to the hon. Gentleman, who has had very great experience on the London County Council? First, is he aware that Clause 32 was unanimously agreed by the General Purposes Committee of the London County Council, which includes a powerful representation of his own friends? Secondly, has he no faith at all in the Minister, who has to give his sanction in any case where the Clause will operate?
Sir H. Webbe: I am not impressed by the unanimous decision of the London County Council, which, on both sides, has always been greedy, unduly greedy, for power, like most of the big authorities and some of the small ones as well. Frankly, my opinion of the value of Ministerial control over matters of this kind is very low. Whatever party is in power, I do not believe that, effectively, Ministers can control the position except by laying down general principles. I hope that in connection with this Bill the House will repeat the general principle that public authorities are not to use surplus land of this kind in the way suggested.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington seemed to have a marvellous vision of how one could use land productively for a year or two. Surely he does not mean that the L.C.C. should be
1984
allowed to acquire several dozen or several hundred acres of land in the expectation that at some time in the dim and distant future it might be able to use it for a statutory purpose. If he does not mean that, then his suggestions make nonsense.
During the debate the special case has been put of land acquired for, say, housing purposes which might not be so required when the time came but might be wanted instead for education purposes. Under its present powers and this Bill the L.C.C. can retain land for educational purposes, but these educational purposes must be something that will be in sight within three, four or five years. Does the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington seriously consider that it would be sensible for the L.C.C. to erect a block of flats on a site it would need in five years, so that it could get some income from it in the interim? If land is in that position, it must remain virtually sterile. The most that can be done with it is to use the existing buildings on the site and do the best one can. One cannot go in for development for three or four years.
I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill and that it will accept the recommendation that an Instruction be given to the Committee to delete Clause 32. I am glad to have been fortunate enough to have been noticed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington as having been present for the debate.
8.56 p.m.
Mrs. Freda Corbet: The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) has encouraged me to point out to the House how very technical Clause 32 is and how much it merits, with Clauses 24 and 26, very patient, detailed consideration with the help of eminent counsel on both sides in order to ascertain in the Committee whether there is a genuine case for the L.C.C. carrying out these local powers. The case the hon. Member was suggesting is absurd. Obviously, offices will not be built to last eighty years if, in ten years' time, it is desired to build a school on the site.
Sir H. Webbe: That was not my suggestion. That suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington).
Mr. Skeffington: I did not refer to a school. The example I gave was the extension of the London Sessions, which would have been absolutely within this Clause. A decision about it had been delayed until after confirmation by the Minister, where land was surplus and was to be used for a coroner's court and offices, instead of the land being left sterile and bringing in no revenue.
Mrs. Corbet: I have not found it extremely easy to find what the Clause would mean to the London County Council.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), very considerable powers are possessed by local authorities to allow them to buy some land for one purpose and use it for another. There are very wide powers in the Town and Country Planning Acts. Nevertheless, as I understand, there are gaps, small gaps, but they have been acknowledged by the Ministry which thought that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, would give the local authorities every possible power they would need. We should allow the passage of this model Clause which has been exhaustively considered by the County Council and by the Department, which has been incorporated on a great number of occasions since 1947; for instance, Merthyr Tydvil and Cromer, in 1948; Huddersfield, in 1949; Manchester and Eton, in 1950; the West Riding and Sutton and Cheam, in 1951; Winchester, Leamington, Essex and Glamorgan, in 1953. The reason for that is that these authorities found a gap, even though they had these extensive powers.
I want to assure the House that the London County Council has no idea of trying to set up a land development corporation to build offices to get so much profit that it would not be necessary to levy a rate in London. There is no such idea. The County Council does not intend to set up in business. I should like to ask hon. Members opposite to allow the Bill to go to Committee, because this is so technical and must have very careful examination. I am sure that they would not want to put any great difficulty in the way of this great authority—the London County Council—which still exercises power very well in the case of so many other Acts, as everyone agrees.
1986
If the case is a fair one, I am sure hon. Members would wish to grant us these powers, provided that the case is made out in Committee. That is the important thing. We are asking that we shall not be fettered by these Instructions. We are quite willing to have the whole thing out in Committee and to abide by its decision.
I listened with very great interest to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell). I could not conceive what prompted him to deny to the London County Council the powers possessed by a great many Conservative authorities. I do not know about his own local authority, but Ilford operates this model Clause, and is a Conservative local authority.
Reference was made to the decision of the Minister about Crown surplus land resulting from the Crichel Down affair. In that case, the land is agricultural. The Clause applies to land in London. There is no possibility of returning it at any time to the owner, because there might be thirty or forty separate owners. I would correct the hon. Member in regard to the Clause which he quoted. The right of pre-emption was no more than an offer of priority to business men to have new shops and offices on the site concerned. If the hon. Member feels that this case was analogous to Crichel Down, I reply that it simply was not so. The land was built up, in the county, any small parcel of it belonging to a large number of owners. It was not possible to return it.
Having given an assurance that the London County Council does not wish to enter into business as such, having disposed of the argument that there is an analogy to Crichel Down, and having tried to convince the House that this provision deals only with some small gaps—I know this is difficult, because the matter is very technical—I now ask the House to give the Clause the same passage as has been promised in the case of the other two Clauses.
I will give a small illustration, on the lines chosen by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). We all have a deep respect for the one-time leader of the London County Council, the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster. It fell to my pleasure to knock him out of his London seat in 1934.

1987
A local authority would not have much chance of falling into the sort of temptation outlined by the hon. Member for Hertford, of deliberately seeking to acquire more land than it needed. As everyone knows, there is all the procedure of an inquiry, all the Council's needs have to be substantiated and the plans set out and the Minister has to be satisfied that the land is required for the purpose. The County Council does not deliberately acquire more land than it needs. It is doubtful whether the Minister would allow it.
There are exceptions. I think that the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster will remember the Kingsway improvement scheme, under which the County Council was empowered to acquire not only the land for the improvement itself but certain surrounding land as recoupment land on which it could erect properties and use the rents to make the scheme pay.
Sir H. Webbe: That was a specific Order.
Mrs. Corbet: It was a specific case, but it does show that there have been occasions when councils have been allowed deliberately to acquire land which they did not require in order to make a highly desirable scheme workable and bring it within the scope of the finances of the council concerned.
We should not seek to acquire land that we knew would be surplus, but we do get genuine surplus land. In certain areas schools become redundant. In the East End of London today, where the population is drifting away, there are quite a number of schools which will in time become redundant. Old people's institutions become redundant. As soon as we can get the old people away from them we shall be glad to see those institutions redundant. We might very well have a school side by side with the divisional education office. We know very well that in about ten or fifteen years that office will need to be enlarged.
Mr. Powell: But his Clause would not be required to do that.
Mrs. Corbet: I am not so sure. If we appropriated the land to that purpose we should have to build offices though we might have no use for them for another ten years.
1988
Meanwhile, the land is sterile. That is the kind of case we have in mind—the opportunity to use land to erect a building which we shall use eventually for our own purposes. Without this Clause we could not do that until the necessity was there and would, therefore, have to leave the land sterile and thereby lose revenue which would be useful to the rates.
We could, of course, do it by amending the plan under the Town and Country Planning Act but, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, that is a very long process and would gobble up the years which might be used for getting on with the job and producing revenue to the relief of rates. I ask the House to realise that this is a technical business, but that it does merit very firm consideration. I ask the House to be kind enough to let this Clause go through without an Instruction, satisfied that there has been this debate and, I hope, satisfied with the assurance that members of the London County Council have been able to give to allay fears of the County Council entering into business on a wide scale.
I was grateful to hear the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster express the hope that the Bill would receive a Second Reading, because there are provisions in it which we should not like to be delayed. I remember having an interest in the Glasgow Corporation Bill some years ago, and expressing my objection to it. I was set upon by every hon. Member from Glasgow, begging me not to object, so that the Bill could go to Committee. Fortunately, I have not got to make that plea tonight. I am convinced that the Bill will receive a Second Reading.
I am glad to know that Clauses 24 and 26 will be allowed to go to Committee, so that they can be properly examined, and particularly so that the figure of £250 can be dealt with. I should be grateful if Clause 32 could also be allowed to receive examination in Committee to see whether it serves any useful purpose for the statutory needs of the local authority.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I want to draw attention to one matter which should be considered by the House in connection with the Bill. As hon. Members will be aware, there is a great

1989
problem in certain areas outside London, such as the Borough of Ilford, of which I represent a part, in which there are large estates of London County Council houses the tenancies of which are allocated by the London County Council to people on their housing lists. I believe that it would have been a good opportunity in this Bill to have made some provision of renunciation whereby houses in these estates might be allocated to people on the housing lists of the boroughs concerned.
Sir Frederick Messer: We have had all this before.
Mr. Iremonger: I want to make this plea, and I hope hon. Members opposite will bear with me if I choose to make it on behalf of my own constituency.
We should put a higher value than this upon the community which is being deprived of part of its community life by the fact that these houses are being occupied by tenants who have no connection with the locality. We know that the country as a whole faces a housing problem, and London itself faces a very great problem, but I do not feel that London's problem can be properly solved by taking action to the detriment of other places.
I believe, therefore, that we should give more consideration to the communities which are suffering from an infiltration of strangers. We have in the Borough of Ilford, for example, a comraratively new community, as communities in this country go, but it is a community which I would describe as a happy ship and one which benefits from a condition of general eupepsia. It is desirable that the children of Ilford people who have grown up in the borough should be able to find their homes there within reach of their families.
I think, therefore, that this Bill is lacking in that very desirable element, which should take the form of a renunciation by the London County Council of what amounts to a usurpation of the right of people to chose to live within the boundaries of their own boroughs.
9.15 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton): I should be failing in my duty if I did not register the strongest possible protest against the attempts which have been made by hon. Members opposite to delete certain Clauses, in particular Clauses 24 and 26.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I have already explained to the House that we have no intention of pressing that.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Whatever the explanation is, the fact remains that these two Clauses are of vital importance to my constituency. In the Brixton division there has been operating for some time a big slum property racketeer—one of the most elusive racketeers in the property-owning business. We have been trying to get at him for years and tonight, even though the attempt has been abandoned, an attempt was made to make it easier for those property racketeers to escape their obligations.
I very much hope that the Bill will be given an unopposed Second Reading, because if hon. Members opposite intend to play party politics in these matters then the chance of a Tory majority at County Hall will disappear for ever.
9.17 p.m.
Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West): I intervene in support of the Bill for only a moment or two and because I want to add a little to what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).
The House should know that a provision has been introduced into the Bill which is of the highest importance for the protection of tenants of small houses, not only in London but elsewhere. This provision can act as an excellent example for similar provisions to be inserted in other Bills to protect similar persons in other districts. My hon. and gallant Friend was not over-emphatic about Clause 27. Hitherto, in spite of the provisions of the Rent Acts, which make certain conditions imposing the disclosure of the ownership of properties, it has been possible to have an elusive and perhaps imaginary individual, such as "Mr. Brady," who can be described as the owner, or as the agent of the owner or in some other capacity in the rent book but the authorities are unable to trace him at all when it becomes necessary.
The House will recollect that there are still a large number of houses in London the ownership of which is in doubt. Local authorities have persevered in attempting to trace the owners to an extent which has cost a lot of money but which has had no result at all. Summonses were in some cases issued against this "Mr. Brady," but the authorities were

1991
unable to serve him. They served the occupiers of the houses, and then even went to the extent of issuing warrants for this "Mr. Brady"—but nobody knows whether there is such a person.
This provision will deal with that situation in a practical way. In future:
"A sanitary authority may for the purpose of enabling them to perform any of their functions under this Act require the occupier of any premises"—
as a rule the occupier knows nothing about it—
"and require the occupier of any premises and any person who (directly or indirectly) receives rent in respect of any premises to state in writing the nature of his own interest therein and the name and address of any other person known to him as having an interest therein. …"
The effect of this will be that any rent collector can be called upon to give the name of the actual owner of the premises. If he does not do so, or if he gives false information, he will be liable to a penalty.
That is not a small point. For example, when the Finsbury Council called together the other councils in London to inquire into the position, it found that something like 22 of them attended the meeting, having been placed in precisely the same difficulty as Finsbury in consequence of their inability to trace the owners of property in their districts. The Bill in general is acceptable to us, but this Clause is particularly necessary in order that the councils' and ratepayers' monies shall be protected and that, instead of local authorities having to go to poor tenants who have no effects at all in order to get the position remedied, the actual owner can be pinned down. In Brixton, so very well represented by my hon. and gallant Friend, who has taken a considerable interest in this matter in his district, the difficulties which hitherto have prevailed should thus be overcome to some extent.
9.21 p.m.
Mr. Ede: It is usual on a Private Bill, particularly of this importance, for some guidance to be given the House by a member of the Government. That is particularly the case tonight when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has based his opposition to the Bill on the grounds of high Tory policy, that we were
1992
now living under a new dispensation and that while these things might have slipped through in years gone by, this Clause 32 involved us in certain implications which brought party differences to an acute crisis when the Bill was presented.
During the evening, for a short period, we have had the presence of the Minister who, presumably, might have advised us. We also have had the advantage of the presence of the Lord Advocate, who probably would find himself as much at sea in dealing with the problems of London local government as I do. I have had no experience of London government, which is almost entirely different from the set-up of local government in other parts of the country.
As I see that the Minister has now arrived, if he desires to give the House any guidance on this Measure, particularly on Clause 32, I am quite willing to give way so that he can tender us the advice which is usually given to the House when an important local government Bill is before us.
I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that the points of difference—and some are the kind of points which ought to be discussed upstairs—may be discussed where we have the supreme benefit of having the discussion carried on under oath, which is not the case on the Floor of the House. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), having given us the advantage of having a very considerable and interesting debate, will feel that after the Minister has spoken he can withdraw the Amendment he moved.
9.25 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I do not think, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), that it is usual in debates of this kind for a member of the Government to express a view on such Measures as this, for the simple reason that there is a procedure provided, which is that the Minister concerned presents a report to the House expressing his views on the proposals contained in Bills of this kind. Under Standing Orders these reports are referred to the Committee upstairs. I should have thought that all these matters which have been discussed tonight were matters which would have been appropriate for discussion in Com-

1993
mittee on the Bill and that that was the right procedure. In accordance with the well established practice, I do not intend to express tonight an opinion on these proposals.
Mr. Ede: Could the right hon. Gentleman just tell us this? Clause 32 is a Clause which has appeared in 120 previous Bills. Presumably his Ministry, or the Ministries which had its responsibilities in these matters before it was established, raised no objection at the Committee stage of those Bills to that Clause. Is it proposed to vary the policy of the Ministry in this case?
Mr. Sandys: I do not think that anything I said should indicate that there is any variation of policy involved. I am considering all the proposals in the Bill, not only those in these Clauses, and I shall be presenting a report, as is customary, to the House.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

HIRE PURCHASE
9.26 p.m.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Defence Regulations (No. 1) Order, 1955 (S.I., 1955, No. 295), dated 24th February, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be annulled.
I think it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if, in moving this Prayer, I were to speak on the other Prayer on the Order Paper, relating to hire-purchase and credit sale agreements.
Mr. Speaker: If it would be for the convenience of the House to do so, then I think it would be preferable to discuss them both together.
Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Sir, it was my understanding that it would be for the convenience of the House to consider them together, and I therefore propose to speak to both Motions.
The Orders against which we are praying give effect to the hire-purchase
1994
restrictions which were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards the end of February. I think it will be agreed by the House that it is important that we should discuss the Orders, because they give effect to one of the three emergency steps which the Chancellor took some time ago to deal with the deteriorating economic situation. As I understand, what, broadly, these Orders do is restrict hire-purchase arrangements and credit sales in such a way that, so far as a wide range of articles is concerned, it will in future be necessary for the purchaser to pay a deposit of a minimum of 15 per cent. of the price of the article, and the period during which the remaining instalments can be paid cannot be longer than two years.
The first thing that should be said about the Government's hire-purchase policy is that in recent months there have been some very rapid change-abouts. It was in the middle of last July that either the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade or the President of the Board of Trade himself announced to the House the sweeping away of the restrictions that had then been in force for the previous two and a half years I understand that the main reason—there may have been subsidiary reasons—why the Government made that change by sweeping away the then existing restrictions last July was that the economic position had become somewhat healthier and that we could afford such a change.
Now, after only a very brief period, we are going back, not exactly to the position as it was before July, but at least to very substantial restrictions in this respect. If the question whether or not we have hire-purchase restrictions is a measure of the health of the economy, it is not a very good comment on the record of the Government that we have the restrictions on after two and a half years, have them off for only eight months, and then, after a short interval, have returned to a position in which we have to operate under these restrictions.
In view of the changes which the Government have announced, one is bound to feel a good deal of doubt at this stage about the wisdom of the Government and the Board of Trade in removing these restrictions last July.

1995
The attitude of the Government is not clear to the whole development of hire purchase finance. Perhaps one could more conveniently use the term "instalment buying," because hire purchase means a particular aspect of this matter, whereas credit sales, probably equally important, are a rather different range. I understand that the distinction is that under a strict hire-purchase agreement the ownership of the goods remains in the hands of the seller until the last instalment has been paid, whereas in the case of a credit sale the ownership of the goods passes to the buyer as soon as the contract is entered into.
We have not had a clear statement of the Government's general policy towards this important part of our trading system. When the Chancellor first imposed restrictions in the early spring of 1952 he then said, in what one might almost call slightly disparaging terms, that:
"Credit restriction will also limit hire purchase, which is essentially a form of living beyond one's means."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 59.]
If that is how the Government regard this form of trading, the middle of July, 1954, was a slightly peculiar time to sweep away all these restrictions because, as we now know, that date on which restrictions were removed was exactly 14 days after the gold reserves had passed their peak and had begun to decline.
It does not show particular prescience on the part of the Government, or particularly good management of our affairs, that at a time when our situation was already beginning to deteriorate the Government chose that moment to sweep away existing restrictions and now, after eight months, they have to impose new restrictions. We all know, also, that the way in which they are imposing them has earned them a rather uneven Press. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade may be aware, the "Economist" dealt very harshly with the Government for choosing this particular form of physical control.
In a leading article, the "Economist" on 26th February last, said that this was a test case of the Government's intentions concerning free economy. It added:
"In whatever form the new orders are drawn up, they will offend against what should be a cardinal principle of economic policy: namely,
1996
that industry and the markets, guided by the individual preferences of millions of customers, will do much better in deciding how any general cuts—whether they are initiated by Bank Rate or by Budget policy—should be distributed than will any gentleman in Whitehall."
That sounds very much like an extract from a speech by the former Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Chandos. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to address himself to that point and tell us why the Government, in our present economic difficulty, in choosing generally to rely upon the indirect weapon of the Bank Rate, should single out hire purchase as requiring exceptional treatment by a direct control.
There is one other aspect of this matter to which I wish to refer, and to which I have referred previously in Questions. That is the appalling absence of adequate statistical material so far as the growth of hire purchase is concerned. It is literally the case that no commentator, so far as I know, in any newspaper, writing about this subject of hire purchase since it became very much in the news after the change of last July, has done so without pointing out the great statistical gap that exists.
The "Economist," "Financial Times," "The Times," "Daily Telegraph," "Sunday Express" and "Picture Post," which has an article on this subject which I was looking at just now, have all called attention to the fact that here was a very big statistical gap and that none of us knew what was the volume of credit outstanding, how it had grown in the past six months and how it was distributed over different types of goods.
It is clearly not impossible to obtain that information, for two reasons. The first is that over the restricted area of the field which relates to motor vehicles we have the information available. That is one aspect of hire purchase in which there is fairly adequate statistical coverage. We know the number of contracts entered into, and for what amount. It would be very useful to have similar information over the rest of the field.
I understand that such information is available easily and expeditiously in the United States of America where, of course, the question of instalment buying is of greater importance than it is in this country. But in this country it has in recent months risen very rapidly in im-

1997
portance. I think it is most undesirable that when dealing with a matter of such importance, and with something which I am sure the whole House will admit can be, though it need not necessarily be, an element of instability in our economy, we should move unnecessarily in the dark. I understand that no Government spokesman has denied the need for these figures, and he could hardly do so in view of the facts.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Many of us agree with the hon. Gentleman in some measure about the need for these statistics, but would he say how they can be collected easily? He has quoted the extraordinarily simple case of motor cars, which happen to be large and expensive items, but would he go to the other extreme and take, for example, the form of hire purchase operated on a weekly basis by great Universal Stores, with a multiplicity of items and a relatively small sum involved on each?
Mr. Jenkins: I am not for one moment denying that there may be problems involved in connection with such statistics, and that one certainly has to strike the balance of advantages, but, as the hon. Member will recall, I based my argument on the fact that it would be possible to provide the statistics on two points.
First, on the fact that information was available in the case of motor cars, and, secondly—and this concerns him much more—that in the U.S.A. there is a far wider statistical coverage than there is in this country. While I would not say that one is able to know about every contract entered into in America, one has fairly adequate information over a much wider field of coverage concerning items much smaller than motor cars, and covering, broadly speaking, the whole range of consumer goods. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have something to say about this tonight.
As I was saying when the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) rose, no Government spokesman either for the Board of Trade or for the Treasury has attempted to deny the value of getting such figures. They said that they would consider it. I asked a Question on 3rd February, and the President of the Board of Trade said that he was weighing the advantages of obtain-
1998
ing the information with the difficulties there might be so far as trade was concerned.
I questioned him again on 10th March, and he was still weighing the position. I should like to know whether the President of the Board of Trade has been able to weigh these two alternative considerations and come to a conclusion, because the changes which we have between the dates of these two Questions and the changes which we are considering under these Orders tonight does underline the urgent need for getting some information.
After all, why did the Chancellor decide to make this change? He presumably had in his mind some idea of the amount of hire-purchase credit outstanding and the way in which that volume of credit outstanding had grown over the previous eight months. He presumably had in his mind an idea of the amount by which he wished to restrict credit, but we have not been told any of those things. We have never heard from the Government—various private estimates have been made—the volume of credit outstanding at present.
Could we have from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight an estimate from the Government of the amount of hire-purchase and credit for consumer sales, because if the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot give us a rough indication of what the position is we are driven to the conclusion that the Chancellor has made very much of a leap in the dark? We also have additional support for the view that it is vitally necessary that urgent effort should be made to get these figures for which everybody is asking, but which only the Government can provide the initiative in obtaining.
I should like also to turn to one other aspect of the problem we are considering tonight. I should like to know to what extent the Parliamentary Secretary considers that these Statutory Orders against which we are praying achieve the objectives which the Government wish them to achieve. Is it, for instance, the case that there is a loophole in connection with credit sales? One of the principal aspects of the restriction which we are considering is that there should be a deposit of a minimum of 15 per cent., but I am sure it will be within the knowledge of most hon. Members that firms are still advertising arrangements

1999
under which goods can be bought on what is commonly called a hire-purchase arrangement without any deposit at all.
I understand that one way of getting round it is by calling it a credit sale and not a hire-purchase arrangement and, in fact, the instalments have to be repaid within a comparatively short period, within nine months, but is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that these advertisements appearing since the Order was laid saying that no deposit is necessary are not, in fact, contravening the spirit he is trying to achieve?
I should like to put another point to him. It was understood that the primary reason for the removal of the previously existing restrictions last July was that, in the Government's view, the economic situation had improved sufficiently to make this reasonable. There was also a subsidiary consideration, which was that a recent High Court decision in the case of Regina v. Proffitt had done a good deal to undermine the effectiveness of the existing regulations. In that case, the judgment was to the effect that where a wireless set was sold under some form of hire agreement with three alternative options at the end of the period of hiring there could be a limitless period for the paying of the instalments.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that, following that decision, previous arrangements were widely believed to be ineffective. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether these regulations are going to be more effective than the previous ones? If so, how are they going to be effective and how does the decision in the case of Regina v. Proffitt bear on this?
I have indicated that one of our main objections to the Government's record in regard to hire purchase is that they have jumped about so quickly because they do not seem to know their own minds and do not appear to have any consistent policy on it. In the difficult economic situation which has now suddenly-appeared, and about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did nothing to warn us, we do not necessarily say that these Orders are wrong, though we think it undesirable that there should be such a quick turn round as there has been in the last eight months.
2000
Undoubtedly in the growth of consumer spending which took place, particularly in the latter part of 1954, so far as the mass of the population is concerned hire-purchase arrangements and credit sales have had a great deal to do with it. So far as the rather more limited number of people in the population are concerned, Stock Exchange gains have had something to do with it, but these people came out of the year better because they came out without any increased burden of debt, whereas the others came out with an increased burden of debt.
Whether or not these restrictions are desirable at the present time in the difficult economic situation in which the Chancellor tells us we now find ourselves, there can be no doubt that the sudden reversals of policy over the last eight months are highly undesirable, and there are a number of detailed aspects about which we require more information. Further, there can be no doubt that the importance which hire purchase has assumed, underlined by the fact that when the Chancellor made three proposals a month ago hire purchase was one of them, makes it clear that we need the fullest possible statistical information, that this is not available, and that the Board of Trade ought to do something about it. Otherwise, the Chancellor will be left to operate in the dark in this important economic matter.
9.47 p.m.
Mr. Harold Lever: I beg to second the Motion.
I think it was one of our Front Bench authorities who, in a satirical moment, felt that this was an opportunity to get me to support something which my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has said. As he speaks always with authority and in an orthodox manner on economics, and as I speak in a manner which is unorthodox, obscure and without any authority whatever, it gives me particular pleasure to support my hon. Friend, whom I admire greatly, and sometimes by criticising him I express that admiration in a discreet way.
My hon. Friend has raised the question of the desirability of this Order, and I shall venture to offer the House with as much brevity as I can command—
Mr. Nabarro: Not two hours ten minutes of it.
Mr. Lever: —my reasons why I think it is a bad one. In the first place, it must be recalled that this Order is part of what is said to be the economic policy of the Chancellor, by which he is endeavouring to secure that the inbalance of payments which has recently emerged shall be corrected.
By this Order, as well as by other measures, the Chancellor is revealing what I consider to be a balloon mentality on economic affairs, on which I have had occasion to address this House before. By that I mean that if we pinch part of the balloon at one point, it inevitably swells up at another point more convenient to our economic planners. I have found from experience that when we keep on pinching the balloon to make it bulge where we think it more appropriate to be bulgy—namely, the overseas balance of payments—it may burst in our faces.
The Chancellor stands in danger because he is now a victim of his own reputation. The right hon. Gentleman came into office and, without doing anything, he found that our balance of payments was improving. Everybody in the House knows, when we are not scoring party political points, that this has had nothing whatever to do with the Chancellor or with Tory policy. It has been caused by world forces. When world forces moved swiftly behind the Chancellor, he found our balance of payments position improving and came with increasing complacency and self-admiration to the Dispatch Box to applaud himself and modestly acknowledge the plaudits for the great achievements, for which he was in no way responsible. He gave me the impression that he was in the same school as the ancient Aztec emperors, who solemnly vowed on taking office that they would make the sun pursue its wonted course from East to West. The Chancellor had as much to do with the improvement in our balance of payments position as the Aztec emperors had with the sun's course.
The Chancellor's difficulty is that, having got into a lift which is going up, he believes his ascent is due not to any mechanical action on the part of the lift but to the movement of his arms. Now the lift is going down, he naturally thinks that, in the national interest, if he gesticulates enough he will remain airborne. Unfortunately—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Whether the Chancellor remains airborne or not does not arise on this Motion.
Mr. Lever: I am afraid that it is not immediately apparent to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the matter has a direct relationship with the Motion. The Order is the product of precisely the circumstance which I have narrated to the House. However, I will not trespass on your good nature, and I will conclude that point of argument by saying that the whole policy of restricting consumer consumption in the hope that one will get an improvement in the balance of payment position is an unproven thesis.
There is not the smallest reason to suppose that if the Order and similar Measures are put into effect they will do more than hinder people in purchasing necessary perambulators and cause considerable dislocation in the furniture manufacturing industry. Instead of there being a movement, as the economists suppose, from these articles towards the manufacture of jet engines for export, a movement from the East End of London to the middle of Birmingham, these industries go through a slack time and employ the same number of people for fewer hours and smaller wages, and the result is that goods become dearer and people are deprived of the necessaries which make life a little more tolerable.
Then, when we have had a dose of that unpleasant medicine and it has not worked, instead of drawing the correct conclusion, the Chancellor is inclined to think of something even more unpleasant than that which he has already inflicted upon us. It is a misguided Order based on an unproven thesis, not unpalatable to some people, which assumes that anything unpleasant is bound to be of considerable moral and economic advantage in the long run. For that reason, I hope the House will not too readily approve the Order.
My second point is about the way in which the Chancellor has behaved. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is present, although he may be embarrassed by being defended by me. He was often charged with having a bureaucratic mind, and it was said that he was imposing controls and hitting at consumers and the like out of wanton doctrinaire policy. It is precisely that which

2003
has brought the Chancellor to this sorry pass. For doctrinaire reasons, the Chancellor swept away controls. Probably the Women's Conservative Association had a jamboree at that time and he thought how nice it would be to go to it and show them what real freedom meant, and so about that time he announced that he would remove all the controls on hire purchase.
I have constantly urged upon the House and upon successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, that the planning should be done gradually, that they should do a little at the time and be modest about it, comparing theory with reality. I am told that I am against planning because I want to do it in a careful, modest way instead of dramatically and with newspaper flourishes. Instead of doing that, the right hon. Gentleman, for doctrinaire reasons, swept all controls away, and now he has to come to the House again.
This is coming back to precisely what my right hon. Friends were so wrongly accused of doing when in office. Hon. Gentlemen opposite used to say, "This legislation is well intended, but of course these poor chaps know nothing about business and how it works and they are making a hash of it and cutting industry to ribbons by the way they are behaving." But that is what the Chancellor is doing. Having swept controls aside, he allowed more and more of these goods to be turned out at less and less price. Everybody was very happy, and then the Chancellor suddenly and abruptly and without any regard to business-like methods cut hire-purchase facilities. He did not do it gradually to allow people to adjust themselves. He has thrown the whole of the furniture trade into chaos as he has done with other trades who were dependent on the hire-purchase market.
Mr. John Hall: Will the hon. Member tell us where the furniture trade is in chaos?
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) knows that there has been a good deal of difficulty in that very industry.
Miss Irene Ward Miss Irene Ward (Tynemouth) rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that the hon. Lady
2004
will be called, if she abides in patience for a minute.
Mr. Lever: I think that the hon. Lady wanted to ask me a question and I was ready to give way. If she waits until I have sat down—
Mr. Nabarro: What about carpets?
Mr. Lever: There is no doubt whatever in those branches of industry where the home market takes the greatest part of our output and where the greater part is dependent upon hire purchase, this sudden and unbusinesslike change, which for doctrinaire reasons has become necessary, will cause great distress.
I hope that in future the Chancellor will satisfy himself before acting in this irresponsible way of the consequences of his policy and that he will consult with business people and the trade unions affected. He should consult with some of the trades. One day he is inviting them to make the ceiling their target and the next he is trying to trample them down to the floor. I am not referring to the interjection of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I should have thought that representing an industry which greatly depended upon hire-purchase sales he would have thought it necessary to say a word in opposition to these Orders.
Mr. Nabarro: I did not rise at the moment the hon. Member referred to acute dislocation in the furniture trade, because my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth was rebuked for so doing, but I want to correct him at once. The Kidderminster carpet industry is in a highly flourishing and prosperous condition and is no way affected, as far as I am aware, by the readjustment of hire purchase under this Order.
Mr. Lever: One would not expect an immediate effect to be the dislocation of the carpet industry, but let us wait until this Order has taken effect. At present the carpet industry is, like many of these industries, very busily engaged on the back-log of orders taken when the retail trade was flourishing. There is no doubt at all that in the furniture industry orders are being cancelled and manufacturers are very short of work. There is no doubt at all, because there a great deal of harm has been done to the consumption trade. We know that these industries must be affected. If they were not to be affected,

2005
why should we have an Order? If the Government are not out to squash hire purchase, what is the point of the Order?
The Order is deliberately designed to restrict consumption in these industries. I hope that when the hon. Member goes back to Kidderminster in a couple of months' time he will get a hot reception for the very callous indifference he has shown to the interests of his constituents. I can understand that in most cases we can count upon the incompetence of the Government, but here their determined decision is to restrict consumption in these industries and we can safely rest assured that they will accomplish their intention. Those are my objections to the Order. I hope that the Minister will at least succeed in creating an honest doubt in my mind which will enable me to abstain, but at the moment I am very much inclined to express direct opposition to the Order.
I hope that it will be in order for the Minister to tell us whether the Government are aware of the tremendous importance which this class of trade will play in our economy and whether they are considering general legislation to put the hire-purchase trade on a proper footing so that the consumer may be protected, not by a 15 per cent. deposit, but by suitable legislation. Such legislation should extend the work of the Hire Purchase Act which Ellen Wilkinson brought in and should make it up-to-date. The consumer would then enjoy the benefit of real protection. This is necessary because of the varied practices which exist. Many firms are perfectly in order in the treatment of their customers, but many rackets are undoubtedly being worked under the guise of hire purchase. I hope the Minister will be able to reply on this point.
10.2 p.m.
Miss Irene Ward: I always endeavour, as a Parliamentary representative ought, to be absolutely objective about any decision which is being taken by the Government, or indeed by the Opposition, as it relates to my constituency. That is the basis of our democratic system.
Therefore, though I am a supporter of the Government because they have done a magnificent job for the country, I feel it is fair to put the point of view of the furniture trade in my constituency. I do
2006
not want anybody to be misled about the effect on a very large furniture factory in my constituency. It is the Tyne furniture factory, which is on the West Chirton Trading Estate. I believe that it is the biggest furniture manufacturing factory in the country, if not in Europe.
The firm is very well known in our part of the world. It is a very good employer. The general policy of the management is not only to give employment, and good employment, on Tyneside, but to help in the social amenities of North Shields. We feel that the Tyne furniture factory and its management have done a first-class job for Tyneside and North Shields.
Very shortly after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took his decision, the general manager said that the factory had to go on short time. He pointed out—I think it is true, because the records show it—that at this time of the year there is always a falling off in orders. The rush of wedding orders before the Budget has probably made use of the stocks of furniture that were available, and there is always slackening of trade at this period of the year; but the general manager pointed out that it was also due to the announced policy of the Government with regard to hire purchase. I therefore feel that it is right when we are discussing this Order that the facts should be known to the House.
It is important to remember that if the economy of the country is not satisfactory difficulties arise not only for the Tyne furniture factory but throughout the whole range of British industry. I was very interested to note that the late Marshal Stalin said—and please do not call me to order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because it really is in order—that the British were very peculiar people because they wanted both to have their cake and to eat it. [Hon. Members: "Roosevelt."] I think that is profoundly true of the present situation. We certainly want stability in the country and, so far as the furniture factory is concerned, we want to maintain full employment.
I want to put on record that until 1936 when the Conservative Government under the late Mr. Baldwin conceived the idea of starting trading estates, which have been of such enormous benefit to my part of the world, we never should have had—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very reluctant to disagree with the hon. Lady, but I think that she is out of order.
Miss Ward: Then I shall get in order in exactly one minute. By the establishment of the trading estates we have the Tyne furniture factory, and because we have the Tyne furniture factory I am able to take part in this discussion on the Order. Though the factory is on short-time working, I am quite certain that people on Tyneside are profoundly grateful to have it there, and I am sure that in a very short time it will be working full time once again.
I should like to make this observation on the objections raised by the Opposition to the Hire Purchase Order. I would remind hon. Members opposite that if people who want to buy furniture would put aside for a period the amount of money which they would be paying in instalments, but which in fact has now to go to the deposit, it only means that they delay the order for their furniture for a relatively short time. I cannot help feeling that if the people in the country and on the Tyneside who wish to maintain full employment and economic stability would just exercise some of their shrewd caution and save their money for a very few weeks, the wheels of trade would soon turn again and the people themselves would not be worse off.
Though I realise that it is very unpleasant, it is only a question of exercising for a very short time a little discipline with the cash that one has available. I think the chance our people will have, and the action they will take in the maintenance of stability, is one which, taking the long view, they will probably welcome. Though I have to put the full facts before the House and to express myself as I always do—because I regard with the greatest perturbation any signs of deterioration in employment on Tyneside—I think that this is purely a temporary difficulty which will be overcome, and I feel that the decision of the Government to take action before the horse has left the stable is worthy of everyone's support.
Mr. John Hall: Would my hon. Friend not agree that at about the time of the Furniture Exhibition there is always a certain amount of slackness in the furniture industry? Would she not also agree that reputable retailers throughout the
2008
country have been operating on terms very similar to those laid down in the Order, and, indeed, involving a slightly smaller deposit?
Miss Ward: I do not happen to be an expert on the manufacture of furniture. I have tried to give the facts as the general manager of the Tyne furniture factory has given them to me. I have said that he stated there was a slack period in the furniture industry, and I accept it, but I do not think anything I have said in any way conflicts with the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I am sure we all welcome the explanation by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) of the difficulties that have been occasioned in Tynemouth by the Government's recent policy. We are anxious about the fact that the Government, first of all, decide to withdraw the restrictions upon hire purchase with the result that there is an enormous expansion of hire-purchase trade, and then within a matter of months the restriction is reimposed, even though in a rather changed form. It is that continuous alteration to which we wish particularly to call attention.
I want to give one or two examples. I have had my attention called to the effect of this policy upon the cycle industry. I understand that recently, at any rate since the withdrawal of restrictions, about 60 per cent. at least of the cycle trade has been carried on the basis of hire-purchase agreements of one sort or another, and the trade is certainly anxious about the effect upon their work of this new decision of the Government. There is no doubt that it has had the effect of cancelling orders to a considerable extent. Therefore, these are matters to which we ought to call the Government's attention, and we ought to expect the Government to give us much more full information about the extent and development of hire purchase than we have so far had.
It seems rather odd that during the last few months the Government seem to have singled out the cycle trade for a particularly heavy blow. We recently had to protest against the Government's action in bringing in a new, specially-designed form of Purchase Tax with respect to one particular type of attachment to cycles which,

2009
up till then, had escaped Purchase Tax. The Government then came along in a white sheet to apologise for increasing Purchase Tax when the supporters of the Government had been calling for reductions for many years. Then, as if that was not enough—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is enough.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I appreciate the point that you are about to raise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think it is particularly unfortunate that the Government have taken a further step to make difficult the position of the cycle trade, which is considerably affected by the Order and the reimposition of restrictions on hire purchase.
Mr. Nabarro: All the Order does is to require a deposit of 15 per cent. Surely the hon. Gentleman believes in practising what he preaches. Did he not put down a deposit of £150 to come to the House in anticipation of financial benefits to follow?
Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Member may be thinking of some past misfortunes of his own from which he has not been able to secure the return of that sum.
We are considering the difficulties of many trades directly affected by the Order and I was calling attention to one example. Many firms say that they would not object so much to the effect of the Order were it not that many less reputable firms appear to be able to get round its conditions and to carry on their practice of supplying goods on something equivalent to hire purchase without deposit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) called attention to some practices by which firms escape the control under the Hire Purchase Act and he referred to credit sales as one example. That is a form which apparently is still not covered by the operation of the Order. It is clear that many reputable firms resent the way in which they are being singled out for penalty when other less reputable firms can get away scot-free with the arrangements which they have been carrying on for a considerable time. What action do the Government propose to take to try to widen the scope of the Order to bring within its ambit some of the malpractices which, as is well known, have been going on for some time?
Mr. John Hall: Is it not true that, whereas no deposit is charged in those cases, the period of credit is much shorter and, therefore, the terms of repayment are not as attractive to the buyer?
Mr. Blenkinsop: That may well be true. I do not pretend to have the personal knowledge of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall).
It is true, as one of my hon. Friends reminds me, that the repayment period has to be under one year in these credit sale cases, but I want also to refer to another type of arrangement which escapes scot-free under the Order and which is well known as a renting agreement. Under it, the property never passes at all, but many people are persuaded or fooled into believing that they are taking part in a hire-purchase agreement when they are not.
It is practices of this kind, sometimes perhaps of doubtful legality but in most cases, unhappily, quite legal, which make particularly difficult the position of good traders who are carrying out their hire-purchase trade in a proper and efficient way and which, naturally, encourage them to protest against the manner in which they are being singled out when other firms are carrying on their business without deposit and without proper regulation or control.
It is fair that we should ask for full information from the Government about the scale of hire purchase before we allow the Order to go through. Although it may be necessary to reimpose some restrictions on hire purchase, at the same time it is surely important that there should be a sense of fairness of treatment between firm and firm—and that is not the case at present. On those grounds I feel that my hon. Friend's comments are fully justified and I hope that the Government will give much more information to us than they have given up to now.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. F. J. Enroll: When I originally heard the announcement of these new hire-purchase restrictions I fell to wondering what important effect they could have on the economy. I still remain far from convinced that these new restrictions will make so very much difference to the balance of payments as we on this side of the House would generally like to imagine.

2011
The restrictions will fall most heavily on the lighter type of consumer product, such as furniture, carpets, small radio receiving sets and the like—commodities which do not absorb a very great deal in the way of raw materials or labour. I hope that we on this side of the House will not fall into the easy error of imagining that any balance of payments difficulties which may loom ahead are to be readily solved by the simple technique of battening down on hire purchase, because, while there is a high level of wages, the goods will be purchased just the same whether there is hire-purchase restriction or not.
I do not hold that hire purchase is a bad thing, as is so often made out by those who claim to understand the economy. On the other hand, I believe that hire purchase with generously extended payments is a right thing for an economy such as ours, and with a population constantly improving in intelligence and capacity to manage its own affairs. I was, therefore, sorry that it was necessary to introduce this restriction, particularly in regard to the limit of payments to two years for furniture, because it is furniture particularly that a young married couple need when they take on a house. It must be a very real burden to a young couple to repay the whole cost of their furniture in two years. In any case, it seems slightly illogical to me that while one may have 25 years, or, in the case of one building society, up to 35 years in which to complete the purchase of a house, one must, nevertheless, be limited to only S
two years in which to furnish it.
I know it has been said that it is no very great hardship to put down a deposit of at least 15 per cent. of the total purchase price of the article. For those of us accustomed to paying at the time for what we want, it seems ridiculously small, but, for a person accustomed to working on a weekly wage as distinct from a monthly salary or quarterly fees, it is a very difficult thing to save up as much as 15 per cent. of the cost of a labour-saving article he may want to install in his nice new home. It has been said that the reintroduction of the 15 per cent. deposit will make a person think whether he really wants a thing or not before embarking on the purchase.
2012
At first sight that is a very forceful argument—it would be if it came from hon. Members opposite—but we on this side of the House do not believe in governessy Government. I would not mind if a person made a mistake, bought on an impulse and later found that he did not want what he had bought. He would then have learnt his lesson and would do better next time. I do not think it is any part of our duty to go in for governessy Government of that sort.
It is said that hire purchase is an unsatisfactory feature of our life today. On the contrary, it is part of our economy. One has to think of the young wage earner—earning a substantial wage, thank goodness, these days—who has money in his pocket. If he does not use it for hire-purchase instalments he will use it for something else.
Mr. Nabarro: Football pools.
Mr. Erroll: Yes, on football pools, or on cinemas, or on cigarettes, or in the public house.
He is not going to acquire the habit of buying useful goods which will be both a pleasure to himself and to his wife. He will, instead, acquire the habit of spending money only on goods which are consumed as soon as purchased—although, admittedly, they will bring substantial revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It must be remembered, too, that if he starts the habit of buying on instalments at an early age, then, when the essential goods have been bought, he will have acquired the habit of putting away a sum each week, and, when the essential goods have been acquired, that habit may be channelled into the National Savings movement for the rest of the individual's life.
In this matter, instead of relying on these Orders, we could have relied on the common sense of the British public, because it has been shown that the man who goes in for hire purchase behaves extremely sensibly in the matter. Hire-purchase debts are reckoned to be the best commercial debts in the country, and some of the most extreme forms of hire purchase, such as getting one's summer holiday on hire purchase, are not at all popular, thus showing that the public has a sense of the limitations there ought to be on the methods of acquiring goods or services by hire purchase.

2013
It must be remembered, too, that a man a large part of whose goods are obtained on hire purchase is a man far less likely to embark on frivolous lightning strikes, because he is a man who wants to keep up his hire-purchase payments. Therefore, the hire-purchase system is important not only in maintaining full employment, but in maintaining a full week's work every week. While I shall assist in resisting this Prayer I shall do so with a heavy heart, and in the hope that very soon the Government can dispense with these Orders.
10.27 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I have not yet been able to discover, even listening to this debate, any reason for the Government's policy in this matter. The more I study the lists and conditions of sale in the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sales Agreements (Control) Order the more amazed I am at the lack of reasoning behind it.
For an example of the utter imbecility of the provisions of the Order I refer to certain items in the First Schedule. It will be noted that the minimum amount that must be paid at once for various items is laid down at 15 per cent. of the purchase price, and the maximum period allowed for the subsequent periodical payments is 24 months in the great majority of cases, although in a few cases it is 48 months.
As an example of what appears to me to be the entire lack of reasoning in this Order, I mention refrigerators. Refrigerators having a storage capacity not exceeding 12 cubic feet come within the restrictions, and one must pay 15 per cent. down and clear the outstanding amount in not more than 24 months.
This leads me to conclude that if the refrigerator I buy is of a capacity of 13 cubic feet, I can do as I like about paying for it. Is that right? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] What is the reason for that? If I choose to buy a refrigerator of any capacity up to 12 cubic feet, these restrictions are imposed upon me, whereas if I choose to buy a refrigerator of any capacity over 12 cubic feet, I can enter into any arrangement I like about my monthly or periodical payments.
Sir William Darling: The 12 cubic feet domestic refrigerator is such as the hon. Gentleman would have in his kitchen. He would
2014
not want to fill four rooms of his house with a refrigerator four times larger than he needed, would he?
Mr. Thomas: I am not talking about the size of the house; I am talking about the size of the refrigerator. I am merely pointing out—whether it is a householder or anyone else who wishes to buy the refrigerator—that this restriction applies. As the sentiments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) seem to be centred in the trading community, perhaps he will revise his remarks.
The First Schedule of the Order covers perambulators, baby carriages and push chairs. Under the same restrictive arrangements, if a person cannot afford to pay for his perambulator within a maximum of 24 months, he will have to carry his child about with him. Is that it? This is penalising people who cannot afford to pay spot cash for such necessary articles of family life as perambulators, baby carriages and push-chairs. If they cannot save up enough to pay spot cash or to pay for these things within the restricted period of 24 months, they must go without that which they need.
The fourteenth item listed in the Schedule reads:
"Washing machines and washers which are designed for heating water by electricity or gas but which are not otherwise designed for operation by electricity or gas, including wash boilers and coppers."
What does that mean?
Incidentally, the period in which people are allowed to pay for any of those articles is more generous, in that it is 48 months instead of 24 months. But the meaning of that item, as I understand, is that if someone buys a washing machine which is designed for heating water by electricity or gas, but is not otherwise designed for operation by electricity or gas, his period of payment for it is limited to 48 months; whereas if it can not only heat water by electricity or gas but can also operate by electricity or gas—in other words, if, instead of turning the handle by hand, the machine is made to operate by power—the purchaser is not allowed to pay for it over a period purchase arrangement.
What is the reason for that distinction? Surely, if the newly-wed housewife wishes to buy a machine which not only heats water by electricity or gas but is work-

2015
able by electricity or gas, she should be allowed to make her choice of the kind of machine she purchases and there should be no restriction upon the period within which she is allowed to pay for either. It would be rendering a service to the community generally to leave things as they were. That would induce people to purchase far more efficient types of domestic appliances than they would do if the restrictions in these Orders were in operation.
I want to make special reference to caravans. Incidentally, the Minister might indicate where his caravan has rested. I have had a communication from makers of caravans who call attention to parts of the restrictions on hire purchase which will react most unfairly on those members of the public who use caravans as mobile homes. These caravans were not included in the old restrictions on hire purchase and the makers say that quite a large percentage are still purchased as homes.
They hope that a strong protest will have effect immediately in connection with these restrictions. It is pointed out that under the existing arrangements one person can apparently buy a house and have 20 or more years to pay for it but another individual, whose occupation makes it essential for him to have a mobile home, is restricted to periodical payments over two years. That is obviously grossly unfair. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to give sympathetic consideration to that point.
Generally, the reasoning on which these Orders are based is fallacious, assuming that the premises on which the Government took their previous action were valid. Why is it that within such a short period of the removal of these restrictions the Government have found it necessary to reimpose them? The Minister, in replying to the debate, owes it to the House and to the country to give a much more valid reason for his policy than anything that we have so far heard or seen in print in connection with the introduction of these Orders.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I have rarely listened to a Motion, moved and seconded by hon. Members opposite, where such diametrically opposed views and principles have been expressed. The
2016
hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), who seconded the Motion, seemed to suggest throughout his speech that there is no need at all for any regulation of hire-purchase transactions, either as to the amount paid as a deposit or as to the length of time for repayment.
The hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), on the other hand, as a purist in the Socialist sense of the word, wishes, with an abracadabra of rules and regulations, to induce the general public to obey the dictates of his particular political theories.
For my part, I find myself at one point only in agreement with the hon. Member, and that is that it would be manifestly in the national interest for a simple formula to be devised for collection, analysis and publication of statistics of hire-purchase transactions. But I do not want the American model, which the hon. Gentleman seems to infer in his speech would be a good thing, namely, a return to a central statistical bureau of each and every hire-purchase transaction. If statistics are to be collected in this country, I think it should be done on the general basis that the returns are made to Somerset House annually as in connection with the requirements of the Companies Act. Every company carrying on hire-purchase trade would then return, once a year, the total sum of money that has been involved by extended credit payments and the approximate dates on which repayments fall due to be made. In that respect, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
May I turn for one moment to a particular item stipulated in the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, namely, floor coverings including carpets, which are, of course, associated with furniture. Several hon. Members have said earlier that dislocation has been caused to the furniture trades by the effects of this Order and uncertainties particularly as to the trend of future sales. That is not so with the carpet trade. This Order was made on 24th February. The carpet trade, and notably the association which represents the manufacturers in that industry, the Association of British Carpet Manufacturers, have had one month to consider the implications of the reimposition of a very mild and limited form of hire-purchase restrictions and have made no representations to me about this Order.

2017
and neither has any carpet manufacturer in my constituency—and practically one half of the entire carpet manufacturing industry of the United Kingdom is centred in the Kidderminster district.
Had there been any uncertainties created by the terms of the Order I have no doubt that, in view of the forthright fashion in which carpet manufacturers approach me in connection with other matters upon which they feel concern, notably Purchase Tax, they would have informed me of their grievances and apprehensions about this Order.
I support a system which requires that any member of the consuming general public should pay a reasonable sum in deposit upon a hire-purchase transaction covering an article or articles such as furniture or other goods covered by this Order. I think it is profligate financially and often improvident, and is conducive to unhappiness in the home on account of over-spending and other forward commitments for hire-purchase arrangements to be made on the "Never, never" as it is colloquially called, when no deposit is asked for and, for example, ten years given to pay the balance for the article concerned. That is the sort of thing that has developed in the course of eight months since the earlier hire-purchase restrictions were lifted altogether.
When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the reimposition of the milder regulations under this Order, he said he would seek permanent powers in this connection which foreshadows, I fancy, future legislation on the subject. Personally, I would support such legislation based upon a statutory requirement that there should be a deposit varied according to the class of article concerned of 15 to 20 per cent. of the purchase value with the whole of the remaining sum of money to be repaid over a reasonable period of months which, I believe, is to be found in this Order and correctly stated to be about two years for the kinds of goods concerned.
The hon. Member for Stechford suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been a little too venturesome or even financially adventurous in removing all hire-purchase restrictions, last July. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor believes, as I believe, that Conservative freedom works. But there are many imponderables. [Interruption.] Yes
2018
there are many imponderables in postwar economic affairs, and if, before hon. Gentlemen opposite become so mirthful, I may be allowed to complete my point, I would say something which, I think, accentuates those imponderables.
Only a few days ago, the chairman of a building society, handling large investment moneys, had occasion to say that he could not account for the very great increase in personal savings which has occurred in the last couple of years or so. Nor could anybody else accurately account for it. It is just one of those phenomena which has occurred in this period of a year or two and like this great increase in hire-purchase trade which, because of the no deposit arrangement and the greatly extended period of credit, was tending to get out of hand.
It is for that reason that I want modest regulations; and not only modest regulations involving greater foresight on the part of consumers, but also an incentive to thrift; because, if people are not persuaded at one and the same time to commit themselves to a large number of hire-purchase agreements often involving no deposit, and many years for the purpose of repayment, then the concomitant will be a greater incentive to thrift and personal savings in every form.
For these few reasons, and for many Others upon which there is not the time to express a view tonight, I suggest that this is a wise Order and a sensible precursor to the permanent powers which, I hope, the Chancellor will come to the House to seek in due course for regulation of hire-purchase transactions. Those powers should cover such relevant matters as deposits, length of period for repayment of balances under hire-purchase contracts, and maximum rates of interest, all of which, I believe, to be most desirable in the national interest.
10.47 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: We want to know tonight if Her Majesty's Government have really got into such a dreadful muddle as they seem to have done. Why relax these restrictions last summer and then suddenly clap them on again, as was done a month ago? My hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said that by last July the gold reserves were already falling; so that last summer would have seemed a

2019
queer time to have let these restrictions go. It was in March, 1954, exactly a year ago, that the rise in import prices, which is mainly responsible for this situation, began; so this situation had been going on for five months when the Government let go these restrictions.
The Chancellor told us that he wanted to counter excessive internal demand—which may be a gloomy indicator to the Budget—but hire-purchase activity is only one form of creating internal demand. Mr. Gibson Jarvie has recently uttered a howl of hatred against the Government in language which leads one to think that he believes a Labour Government still to be in power. I have seldom found myself in any sort of agreement with Mr. Gibson Jarvie in the past, but I must say that I find some substance now in his question, "Why pick on hire-purchase?"
The Chancellor said, after his recent statement, that hire-purchase had really got out of hand, but I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to give the evidence for supposing that it has got excessively out of bounds and to an extent which is not true of anything else which is comparable. I do not know what the evidence is. I know that bank advances for hire-purchase purposes increased by 55 per cent. from February of last year as compared with three months ago, but the total bank advances for that purpose, so far as I know, are only £30 million today and represent only one and a half per cent. of the total of bank advances.
I believe it is said that the total of hire purchase debt outstanding is about £450 million. I do not know whether we really know that for certain, or whether it is merely an estimate. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us? Can he tell us whether the Government have tried to find out, or have they acted in the one field where we do not in the least know the facts? If so, I should have thought that that was rather curious behaviour.
The Chancellor also told us that he had asked the Capital Issues Committee and the banks to restrict advances for hire-purchase facilities. He actually said that he had asked them to adopt a "more restrictive attitude towards such advances." I imagine that that phrase must
2020
have been drafted by the Parliamentary Secretary himself, for the idea of the Chancellor adopting a more restrictive attitude suggests the governess, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) said.
Why this attitude towards bank advances for hire purchase and nothing else? Are we to know whether the Chancellor simultaneously asked the banks to be generally more restrictive in their lending? After all, bank advances, of which hire-purchase loans are only one and a half per cent., have now reached an all-time high level of well over £2,000 million, of which nearly £400 million are personal and professional advances. On the face of it, that would appear to be more directed to the excessive internal demand which worries the Chancellor than the single item of hire purchase. Indeed, I expect that the Parliamentary Secretary has noticed that loans to stockbrokers have actually increased by as much as 100 per cent. between the later months of 1953 and the later months of 1954, and I rather wonder why that did not attract the attention of the Chancellor.
Mr. Nabarro: "Bears."
Mr. Jay: It seems unlikely that it would have been "bears" in the later months of 1954.
Sir W. Darling: Is that not a very good argument for the increase in the Bank Rate? Does it not mean that the rate should have been made even higher?
Mr. Jay: I am sure the hon. Member realises that we are discussing hire purchase rather than the Bank Rate, but on another occasion, we can no doubt discuss that.
The Chancellor also told us that the Government are now pursuing a policy of generally limiting home demand. It seems to us that this is a strange way of going about it. I suppose that he wants to restrict demand for motor cars and television sets and things which he considers to be partly luxuries, but he is penalising the ordinary families buying furniture for essential purposes. One would wonder whether it would not have been more sensible to have used Purchase Tax, which could have discriminated between one type of commodity and another. In point of fact, while the

2021
Chancellor is limiting the purchase of furniture with the affects of which we have heard, he has actually taken Purchase Tax off fur coats in the last few weeks. That is a rather curious example of Government policy.
I was struck by what the hon. Lady for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) said about the furniture factory in West Chirton, partly because I was in some way responsible for introducing the firm there and have followed it since. My information is that 1,100 people employed in Tyneside Plywood are now working only three days a week as a result of this Order. I do not see how it helps the balance of payments to have 1,100 people in Tynemouth working only three days a week.
Mr. William Shepherd: Is it not true that the Wolfson Group in the last four weeks almost stopped its buying for internal, national domestic reasons and that that is why there is less demand in the furniture trade?
Mr. Jay: The hon. Lady seemed to think it had something to do with the Order, and that certainly was my information.
Miss Ward: I think I must put this straight. The general manager told me that it was something to do with the Order.
Mr. Jay: I am indebted to the hon. Lady, because that is precisely what I was saying. As the factory stands on a Board of Trade Trading Estate, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us whether the 1,100 people there are on short-time.
Why do the Government propose to take statutory powers in this case for limiting demand when they do not propose to do the same in other examples of boom or expanding activity? The Chancellor said that permanent legislation was to be introduced. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how soon that will be done?
We should not object to measures for regulating hire purchase as part of a general policy or plan for steering the economy of this country, but I do not understand why the Government think it right to legislate in the case of hire purchase and not in the case of dividend limitation, for instance. Could
2022
it not be argued that increased dividends have contributed just as much to the excessive demand in recent months? Why introduce statutory control here and not tighten exchange control, which, one would have thought, might have contributed a great deal more to the present balance of payments situation? In view of the comparative figures of bank advances on hire purchase, on the one hand, and stock exchange advances on the other hand, one would have thought that the Government might have done something in that respect, too.
It seems to be the Government view that Conservative freedom works all right in the Stock Exchange, the foreign exchange market and decisions on dividends but not when we come to the ordinary person buying furniture and other household requirements. It does not seem to us either that that is a fair proposition or that this discriminating partial measure in itself will contribute anything substantial to a still-worsening balance of payments situation.
10.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I think it would be convenient if I gave a general account of the purpose and effect of the Order and, in the course of it, answered the questions or criticisms which have come from various quarters. I will then check from my notes of individual speeches to see whether I have omitted anything.
These Orders were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 24th February. The Hire-Purchase Order is one of the steps taken by the Government to maintain a sound balance of payments. It is part of the Government's general policy of limiting home demand. The House will recall that other parts were the increase in the Bank Rate, the letter to the Capital Issues Committee and the use of the Exchange Equalisation Fund.
This Order, the intention of which is to moderate excessive home demand, is in the interests of our balance of payments and should help to balance our external accounts. It does not indicate any animus whatever against hire purchase as a form of trading. On the contrary, hire purchase has a permanent and useful place in the economy. It has been recognised and dealt with in permanent

2023
statutes. The Hire-Purchase Act, 1938. was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), but he must have been absent for a period when an amending Act was passed in 1954, because he overlooked the existence of that Act, the passage of which showed that this Parliament, too, has had in mind the wisdom of keeping the permanent legislation up to date.
The reason my right hon. Friend foreshadowed a further Act is because we prefer to act in these matters under permanent powers and not under Defence Regulations. During the past year there has undoubtedly been a rapid increase in the volume of outstanding credit. I admit the difficulty of giving exact statistics. I will have more to say on the points raised by the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who has taken an interest in these matters. I agree with him that there are no exact figures available of the outstanding credit. I cannot make a better estimate of the total outstanding, at the end of 1954, than has been made in the "Economist" and elsewhere as being between £350 million and £450 million—a probable increase during the year of about £100 million. The lendings by members of the British Bankers Association, recently published, is only one portion of that amount. I will deal with the increase in these figures later.
What does the Order do? It imposes control on the disposal and possession of certain goods under hire-purchase agreements, and under credit sale agreements, except those in which payment is to be completed in less than nine months. Let me say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) that a credit sale, the total period of which is less than nine months, does not evade the Order. It is deliberately allowed under the Order. As one of my hon. Friends said, in an intervention, the sum demanded is a good deal higher than the sum demanded for the longer periods. There was a similar exclusion from the last Order, and this is in no sense evasion. This Order does not cover simple hire. There are bona fide cases of the hire of goods of which motor-car hiring is a well-known example.
Let me say, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides have often given
2024
the same advice, that any purchaser, or hire purchaser, will be well advised to look at the written document and make sure about the nature of the transaction into which he is entering, for example, whether the goods will be his property at the end. If the transaction is really hire purchase, but is deceptively disguised, I do not think it will be found that it is outside the reach of the law.
Regarding the goods in the Schedule; these may be roughly described as durable consumer goods. The earlier Orders, which were removed in July, have been mentioned. There were two special differences between these and the present Order. The range of the goods now covered is wider, but the terms are less onerous. The deposit is 15 per cent. instead of what was usual in the former Orders, namely one-third. The period for payment is normally two years instead of 18 months. It is four years in certain cases—cookers, water heaters, and wash boilers—set out at the end of the Schedule.
The need for this Order does not now rest, as did the need for the former, on the need for restricting the use of metal-using goods that were required for defence and export. The aim of the present Order is to reduce internal demand roughly over the whole field of durable consumer goods. We do not believe that it is calculated to cause hardship, but it will oblige people to find the money rather more quickly.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us by approximately how much it is expected to reduce the demand?
Mr. Strauss: I do not believe that an exact calculation will be possible, but I think that the hon. Member will have no difficulty whatsover in realising that there is a great difference between having to produce 15 per cent. deposit as a condition of starting to buy furniture and being able to get it without putting down any deposit whatever.
Mr. William Ross: In making that assertion, is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that there will not arise what happened in the case of a company in Ayrshire, about which I wrote to him, where people could not afford a deposit and were sent along the

2025
corridor to a financial trust belonging to the company which lent them the money at so much interest a week?
Mr. Strauss: Provided that people can make a deposit in money, there is nothing to stop them borrowing the money in any way they like, but if they simply enter into a paper transaction where no cash is given at all—I cannot remember the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but there have been some cases of that sort—the transaction is hit by the Order and is illegal.
Mr. Ross: They might as well tear it up.
Mr. Strauss: Not at all. Whatever else the public does or does not know, it knows what is meant by borrowing from a moneylender. There is no deception about that at all. It is subject to its own laws which provide relief against unconscionable transactions and so on.
As far as this Order is concerned, the essential point is the deposit and the period of payment. Its effect on furniture has been considered in particular. I want to point out that there is not such an enormous difference between the deposit specified in the Order and the sort of deposit that has been customary before. During the long period of control of some furniture the deposit was 12½per cent. More recently the deposit recommended by the National Association of Retail Furnishers was 10 per cent. I think that the figure of 15 per cent., though undoubtedly a tightening of the terms and though undoubtedly more difficult for some people, is not such an unreasonable extension as to mean the sort of revolutionary change in the furniture industry that has been suggested in some quarters.
One hon Member mentioned caravans. The National Caravan Council has asked for the removal of all caravans from the Order. Some firms have suggested a three-year payment period instead of a two-year one for certain residential caravans costing between £600 and £800. These representations are being considered, but I cannot give a decision tonight. In general, I think we shall have to be convinced that there are very good reasons for making any exception to the Order, having regard to the general moderation of its terms.
2026
It has been suggested in certain economic arguments that general credit restriction might be sufficient by itself. That, of course, is a possible line for an economist to take, that once we had general restriction through the Bank Rate and so forth, nothing further would be necessary, but in the opinion of the Government this Order reinforces the general restriction. The hire-purchase companies have funds derived from sources which are outside those general restrictions, and the effect of the Order is to concentrate the restrictions on durable consumer goods, thus leaving more of the restricted credit available for industrial investment.
The hon. Member for Stechford and others were quite right, we have not got the information we should all like on statistics. It does not follow that we would be wise in getting it if the method of getting it imposed a very great burden on the trading community What we are urgently seeking to do, and hope to succeed in doing, is to devise a scheme by which, by making representative inquiries, we can obtain a much better idea of the total amount than we have at present.
There is no doubt at all about the very great increase in hire-purchase trading. Sales of articles normally sold by hire purchase jumped very sharply—radio, television and electrical goods are examples. But, suppose for a moment we did not have all these figures, suppose that there was not that demonstrable proof but that it was merely a matter of judgment and commonsense. I think my hon. Friends have some reason to trust the judgment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these matters. The new figures from the banks of advances for hire purchase show a sharp rate of increase—50 per cent. in the last three months—and the total figure trebled in the last 12 months.
Mr. Jay: Even though, admittedly, there has been a very large percentage rise, what is the evidence that this is really an overriding element in the economy as a whole?
Mr. Strauss: I did not say it was, and neither did the Chancellor. What was said by the Chancellor was that hire purchase had got out of hand and needed to be curbed, not to the extent of being done away with but by being subjected

2027
to moderate restraint. The moderate restraint to which it has been subjected is not so very different from the restraint already practised by many of the best traders in these matters.
I will not give such figures as are available; they have been analysed in the "Economist." They come mainly from Hire Purchase Information Ltd. as the hon. Member for Stechford mentioned and from Radio and Television Retailers Association, annual figures of value published by the Gas Council and the British Electricity Authority and the balance sheets of companies. But I must say this in reply to one suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). Any annual figures are of course insufficient for the purpose we have in mind.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman will answer one question? He has indicated that steps are being taken to go some little distance towards closing the statistical gap. Has he consulted retail organisations, such as the Retailer Distributors' Association, who are primarily concerned, and has he got any answer from them?
Mr. Nabarro: My hon. and learned Friend will, I am sure, realise that he will get into a great deal of trouble with my hon. Friends and me if there is any suggestion made that we should follow the American system whereby every hire-purchase transaction has to be reported to a central statistical bureau, with the enormous amount of paper work that involves.
Mr. Strauss: For once my hon. Friend is less than fair, and he apparently did not listen to the earlier part of my speech with his usual attention or he would have noticed that I said we were very anxious to obtain this further information without an unnecessary burden on the trading community. That is why we contemplate getting voluntary representative samples by consultations with those concerned.
The hon. Member for Stechford asked me about our contact with retailers. Retailers are already voluntarily giving us, apart altogether from hire purchase, a certain amount of additional information for which we asked fairly recently. I think we can—and we are anxious to
2028
do this—obtain the information we still desire without a burden upon the business community.
Some hon. Members made a good deal of the point that this Government removed the earlier and different restrictions for the period they did, and now, when the position has changed, impose them again. This Government are not at all ashamed of taking such different action from time to time as may be necessary, and do not hesitate to do so even if such action may occasionally not be popular. That is why they differ so greatly from their predecessors, who allowed an appalling adverse balance of trade to get to disastrous dimensions without taking any steps at all to put it right.
Mr. Jay: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question actually asked? Why did the Government introduce relaxations after the situation had already begun to deteriorate? That is what we asked.
Mr. Strauss: There is no necessary connection between restrictions on the hire purchase of certain metal-using goods and some change in the gold balance. They are not necessarily connected at all. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was or was not in favour of the removal of those restrictions at the time they were removed. Of course, the Government of which he was a member did not even put them on.
Mr. Jay: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying this Order has nothing to do with the balance of payments situation?
Mr. Strauss: Of course I am not saying that. I said precisely the opposite at the very beginning.
The hon. Member for Stechford asked me one important question, which may have been asked also by another hon. Member. He asked, were not the former restrictions, before we took them off, being defeated and evaded and made useless, and will not the present Order suffer from the same defects? The answer as to the former restrictions is in general, no. They were not useless, and this has been admitted by many hon. Members opposite, who all alleged a great change and increase in hire purchase the moment the restrictions were taken off.

2029
However, the hon. Member is right about the effect in one particular case. It was the case of The Queen against R. W. Proffitt, Ltd. That decision, which was given on 19th March last year, was undoubtedly awkward. There is no doubt about that. For technical reasons that decision could not be the subject of appeal, and before a test case could be brought the Order had been withdrawn. We have dealt with the serious difficulty raised by that decision by inserting some new words in the definition of "hire-purchase agreement." He will find them on page 3:
".. whether on the performance of any act by the parties to the agreement or any of them or in any other circumstances."
The effect of the addition of those words is to get over the possibility of evasion which was revealed by the decision in the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. I. O. Thomas: Are we to understand from that explanation of this reversal of policy within a short period of a few months that, when these restrictions were removed, the Government concluded that the economic situation was favourable and that, now they are re-imposing these restrictions, they are doing so because they have concluded that the economic situation is getting worse?
Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman nearly had a brain wave, but not quite. The reason why the Government have re-imposed these restrictions can be read distinctly in the statement of my right hon. Friend when he announced this. Although the fundamental economic position was better than it had been, my right hon. Friend was acting in time to prevent it from degenerating, which was in striking contrast to the Government which the hon. Gentleman supported so disastrously and for so long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) appealed for the furniture trade. For the reasons I have given, I do not believe that the fears she expressed are well founded. I have dealt with the two points made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East on rental agreements and credit-sale agreements for less than nine months—
Mr. Blenkinsop: Bicycles.
Mr. Strauss: Oh, yes, bicycles. There was a great deal of what the hon.
2030
Gentleman said about bicycles which was out of order, but he thought they were specially hit by the terms of the Order. I do not think that they are. He also seemed to think that people were evading the Order by having a scheme of credit sale contracts for less than nine months. Such contracts are not an evasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) under-estimated the possible danger of inflation. Of course the Government do not say that there is anything wrong with hire purchase agreements as such, but he will realise that if there is no deposit it is possible that there will be a certain strain of expenditure on goods made from imported supplies, and that if no deposit is given there will be extra money in the pocket of the purchaser for buying something else.
Mr. Blenkinsop: The Minister said that he was particularly anxious to stop credit schemes for which no deposits are demanded. Is not that a reason why action should be taken with regard to rental agreements?
Mr. Strauss: Rental agreements are not subject to the Order, and there is no reason why they should be, provided that the person well knows that he is going in for a rental agreement and will never get the property. If there is any question of misleading or fraud, there is the existing law.
To sum up, the position is that the Order is a useful addition to the general restriction through the Bank Rate. It reinforces that and operates in certain spheres where that would not necessarily operate. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) spoke about bank advances for other things altogether. When he was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) of the importance of the Bank Rate, the right hon. Gentleman said that we were not discussing the Bank Rate, but in fact he was discussing it very conveniently until he was interrupted by my hon. Friend.
The Bank Rate looks after a great deal but not everything. [An Hon. Member: "Dividends."] I would refer the House to the Answer which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave on 3rd February. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North seemed to think that it was wrong that

2031
if people bought ordinary shares in 1938 they had now, as the Answer I mentioned showed, only lost half of the value of their money. He thought that they ought to have lost the lot. We disagree. For the reasons which I have given, we think that this is a good Order, worthy of the support of the House.
Question put and negatived.
Miss Ward: Hon. Members opposite have not the guts to vote when the time comes.

HOSPITALS, SOUTH-EAST SCOTLAND (CAPITAL ALLOCATION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
11.28 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: At Question Time today, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) a rather flippant reply when he asked whether he did not think that there should be additional hospital beds in Edinburgh. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to have forgotten the Answer which he gave to my hon. Friend a few weeks ago in reply to another Question. That Answer was to the effect that there were at present over 3,000 people waiting admission to the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. That reply could be given about most of the hospitals in the South-Eastern Region of Scotland. It applies not only to general hospitals but also to mental hospitals, where most of us experience difficulty in trying to obtain admission for constituents, and also to institutions for the chronic aged sick.
The general picture from outside is one of overriding shortage of accommodation, particularly for mental cases and the chronic aged sick. When we speak to members of the hospital boards for the south-east of Scotland we have that picture filled in. We find a number of boards, composed of men and women who are doing an excellent job of work, but who are suffering from a great sense of frustration owing to the almost savage
2032
restrictions that are placed on their activities.
If I may take the Edinburgh Northern Group as an example, those responsible for the Western General Hospital are at present building a new neuro-surgical unit and putting on an additional teaching unit and an additional radiotherapy unit. The board feels that it is almost necessary to have new central buildings, because these new additions are being built round central hospital buildings which are completely out of date and should be replaced. In the same hospital, the power house is out of date, Lancashire boilers are still being used, and the laundry is inadequate. In fact, there should be a central laundry for the whole group, thus saving the board a considerable sum.
A similar tale can be told of other hospitals in the same group. We also find that in many cases work is being financed out of endowment funds. These funds are being used for capital expenditure and for maintenance which, I should have thought, was a burden which should be borne by the Government. There is no time to detail them tonight, but there are similar clamant demands for new buildings throughout the Eastern Region. The hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Commander Donaldson) is always asking about Peel Hospital and a new general hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles is always raising questions about Peebles Memorial Hospital, which, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, is very badly sited and, at certain times, places on staff and patients uncomfortable and unpleasant duties.
It is against this background of acute shortages in the area, out-of-date equipment and overcrowding in mental hospitals, that we have to examine the statement made by the Minister on 9th February. Inasmuch as it indicated that there would be some additional money available for capital expenditure for Scotland, that statement was welcome, but on examination I find it disappointing and inadequate. As I read the statement, we get nothing for the ensuing year, no additional money at all, but in the year after we can expect an additional sum for Scotland of £300,000 and in the year following that—that is, in three years' time—another additional £300,000.

2033
The first sum of £300,000 which we get next year, is less than the amount by which the Department cut down the submissions of the South-East Scotland Regional Hospital Board last year. According to my information, the Board made a submission to the Department for capital expenditure totalling £978,000, and that was cut down to £461,000, that is by £517,000. In South-East Scotland today we could use the additional expenditure which has been granted for the whole of Scotland for 1956–57 and 1957–58.
When we look at some of the individual cuts that were made, the position certainly seems rather frightening. Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, incidentally, is not mentioned in the statement of 9th February as being even up for consideration, either under the present scheme or in the near future. The infirmary has a waiting list of over 3,000. That waiting list has been characteristic of the infirmary for as long as I can remember. We find that its submissions for £38,000 were cut to £26,000. In the case of the Northern Group, the submissions for £82,000 were cut to £34,000; and Edinburgh Southern Group from £65,000 to £4,000—I repeat, £4,000. So the sorry story goes on.
Edinburgh Royal Mental Hospital—and we all know that in the Annual Report of the Department for Health the fact is mentioned that overcrowding in mental hospitals is more acute in South-East Scotland than anywhere else in the country—had a cut from £29,000 to £4,000. These are staggering figures; especially in the case of the mental institution at Gogarburn, where the requirement was cut from £10,000 to £300. These cuts are frightening, and it is no wonder that the members of the hospital boards feel themselves under an enormous sense of frustration in their work.
I think that the Joint Under-Secretary stated that priority attention was given for schemes of replacement of old equipment such as boilers and laundries; and we all know that the set-up of laundries can save hospital boards large sums of money. But when one examines some of the requisitions made by hospital boards in connection with these schemes, one finds that the same ruthless process has been applied. At Haddington, where
2034
the water services needed renewing, the estimated allocation of £7,000 was cut to £2,000; and this in spite of what was said about encouraging these schemes. The Peel Hospital had a cut from £21,000 to £15,000, and Dingleton from £7,000 to £6,000; and there was similar treatment in other schemes undertaken by hospitals elsewhere. It is quite obvious that the first point which I made tonight seems to be very true, namely, that this present increase announced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will, of course, in no way measure up to the requirements of the South-Eastern Region or of Scotland as a whole.
I should like to ask one or two questions about which I think we could be given information. Have the Department of Health of the Scottish Office and the regional boards made a measure of the total amount of work which ought to be done in the district, and come to any conclusion as to what it would cost? We should have some information about that by this time. We have a ragged sort of picture; for instance, we know of cases where expenditure has been severely curtailed, and where urgent work cannot be done. But I cannot find an overall picture of the amount of work which is required to give us an adequate and efficient hospital service.
Is there a short-term programme; is there a long-term programme? What is its nature, If it exists, and how does this proposed increase, even with the existing rate of capital expenditure, measure up to this particular job? We are entitled to know how we are getting on with the job. What is its size? What is the contribution we are making each year? What does this extra £300,000 mean? What increase can the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board expect to receive? It is true that on 9th February the Joint Under-Secretary enumerated certain major proposals which were to be tackled with the use of this £300,000. Only one of them was in South-East Scotland and that was a new surgical block in Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy. What other work is to be done in the region with this money? I should also like to know what kind of sum the board can expect to receive from this additional allowance.
Why did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not say that anything was to be done to provide more accommodation

2035
at Fife General Hospital, which has long been recognised as urgent and necessary, which is required to relieve the pressure on the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, and which obviously needs to receive some priority? To what extent does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman expect this appalling pressure which is continually exerted on the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary to be eased? To what extent will it be relieved by the expenditure of these additional sums in the South-Eastern Region? I feel that it may make very little difference, but I may be wrong. The pressure has caused much concern for many years and something should be done to relieve it.
I conclude by saying that we have made the hospital service a national responsibility and that it is up to us to see that the Minister responsible, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government face up to the fact that the service has to be made efficient, adequate and up to date.
11.43 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): The House will want to congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on the great amount of work he has put into obtaining the facts and figures about the situation in the South-Eastern Region of Scotland. I should like to say at the start that there was, of course, nothing flippant in my reply to the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde). He was referring to population as the basis for the number of hospital beds and I thought, rightly or wrongly, that the number of hospital beds should have some relation to the number of people requiring them.
Mr. David J. Pryde: The point was about the mining area. The mining industry has the heaviest casualty rate in the country.
Commander Galbraith: That does not quite come into what I have to say at the moment, but I am aware of the fact which the hon. Member has thought it necessary to remind me about.
I should like to refer to my statement on 9th February, because it is of very considerable importance and has a bearing on the matter we are now discussing. I said that the total pro-
2036
vision for hospital building in Scotland is to be increased from its present level of £1,900,000. That will be the amount which will remain next year, and it will be increased to £2,200,000 in 1956–57—that is, by £300,000, as the hon. Gentleman said—and by another £300,000 to £2,500,000 in 1957–58.
Mr. Willis: It will be a year before any of that comes into operation?
Commander Galbraith: Yes. There will be an increase in 1957–58 of £600,000 over the amount being spent this year. Of the additional funds to be provided, £50,000 in 1956–57 and £150,000 in 1957–58 will be used to supplement the present special programme of plant renewal which has been going on for some time. We expect to spend £250,000 in 1956–57 and £350,000 in 1957–58.
The balance of the additional funds—that is, £300,000 in 1956–57 and the extra £300,000 in 1957–58—will be used to increase the number of major building schemes undertaken, and. as I told the House on 9th February, I expect it will be possible to put in hand schemes to a total value of £3 million during the period of three years. I will, naturally, give the House particulars of that programme at the earliest opportunity, that is, as soon as it is decided.
I would, meantime, like to deal with the preparatory work which is going ahead on the major schemes. These include, in the South-Eastern Region, the now block to which the hon. Gentleman referred of 120 beds in the Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, mainly for surgical purposes. Already in that region there are two major projects under way. The first of these is the radiotherapy institute for treatment of and research in malignant diseases. The total estimated cost of this is £350,000. The main part of the institute, I am glad to say, is nearly ready. The second is a new unit of 60 beds for neuro-surgery. That is costing £300,000.
Both these schemes are at the Western General Hospital, in Edinburgh. The building of these units with those facilities for the application of new and highly specialised techniques and for research shows that the National Health Service in Scotland is not neglecting the vital importance of giving full scope for the application of the latest advances in

2037
medical science in the treatment of the individual patient. Among the major projects to begin in 1957–58 is the reconstruction and extension of the Royal Mental Hospital in Edinburgh at a cost of £450,000. The hon. Gentleman was asking me what we were doing about that, and suggested that nothing was being done. That extension is to go ahead in 1957–58.
Mr. Willis: I am sorry to interrupt, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said in his statement that this was only being considered. Up to the present, nothing has been done.
Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman asked me about long-term and short-term programmes. He must take the long-term with the short-term. I have told the hon. Gentleman that in 1957–58 we are going ahead with the reconstruction and extension of the Royal Mental Hospital, in Edinburgh. I got a certain impression from the hon. Gentleman when he spoke of these sums of money which were needed. I wonder whether he has considered what it would amount to if he were to add it all up.
Mr. Willis: I asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that question.
Commander Galbraith: Exactly, but I am not a lightning calculator any more than the hon. Gentleman is, and at the moment I could not possibly tell him what it comes to. But supposing that the demand is of the nature that he has indicated and it were general throughout the whole of Scotland, England and Wales, I wonder what the cost would be.
These things have to be approached in progression. One cannot just put the whole world right at once. The hon. Gentleman must not expect all these things to be done immediately. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the South-Eastern Region was being badly treated, and I would point out that the population of that region is 22 per cent. of the population of Scotland. Against that they had 23⅓ per cent. of the total capital expenditure on hospital building work in the year 1951–52; in 1952–53, it was raised to 27 per cent., and, in 1953–54, to 30 per cent.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Commander Galbraith: I am not giving way. I have only about three minutes
2038
in which to say what I have to say. Hon. Members must wait for another occasion.
The figure for the current year is not yet available, but it is probably about the same as for 1953–54. Total expenditure for Scotland for the last three financial years was about £4,400,000. Of that, the South East Region's share was £1,200,000. The allocation for the current year is £520,000, and for 1956–57 it is likely to be about £660,000 and, for 1957–58, about £690,000. This will include provision for plant renewal and major schemes.
It will be seen that the Government have in mind to helpas much as is possible towards creating better conditions in hospitals. I would remind the House that the actual works to be undertaken are determined by the regional board. It is for the board to consider the various competing claims in the light of medical needs and priorities. I have not time to attempt to review in detail the service in South-East Scotland, but there are one or two general points to which I will allude. I admit, candidly, that there is scope for further capital expenditure on the hospital service not only in this region, but in many parts of Scotland.
The increase of capital allocations which I announced on 9th February represents a definite contribution towards meeting these needs. In general, the need is less for new bed accommodation than for improvement and modernisation of existing services. It is true that some new beds are needed. In Fife, there is a definite shortage of accommodation for patients, and I have mentioned the special steps being taken in that area in connection with the infirmary at Kirkcaldy. [An Hon. Member: "What about a new general hospital?"] That is not in the first programme. In other parts of that region the main need is for further accommodation for the mental health service. That has been recognised by the approval, in principle, given to the major scheme for the reconstruction and extension of the Royal Edinburgh Mental Hospital.
Further beds are also needed for mental defectives, and a scheme of this kind will have to be undertaken in the Edinburgh area when progress has been made on the major schemes already scheduled. It is also important to see that hospital

2039
facilities are available to enable advances in medical science to be brought to bear in the treatment of patients. Two important schemes of this kind I have already mentioned.
Apart from the programme of capital works, a prime concern of the hospital authorities must be to see that the best use is made of existing resources. We are all very much aware of the long waiting lists: but it is not a good thing to judge by the waiting lists alone. Urgent cases are admitted promptly. It is a good thing to look at the number of inpatients dealt with in the course of a year. At the end of the year, there were 8,567 people on the waiting lists for hospitals in Edinburgh—that is, all of them. Against that figure, the number of patients discharged last year was 59,750. If one works that out, one finds that there was a turnover of beds seven times in a year. No one can have had to wait long. It is satisfactory to know that the turnover of beds was so rapid.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East in the short time that was available to me.
11.55. p.m.
Mr. David J. Pryde: I regret to say that the position of the Government tonight is indefensible. In fact, I should put it more strongly. The recent conduct of the responsible Ministers has been reprehensible in the case of Peebles. Yet the Joint Under-Secretary of State made no reference to it, although his conscience pricked him when, recently, he suddenly rushed oft, accompanied by two of his top-ranking officials, to examine the position in Peebles for himself. Had he taken me with him, I would have shown the right hon. and gallant Gentleman how the Peebles War Memorial Hospital is totally inadequate and unsuited for any purpose to which it is applied
2040
Then there is the case of Dalkeith. Under the Labour Administration the South-East Scotland Regional Hospital Board decided that there would be a new hospital built there. The Minister knows perfectly well that Midlothian County Trades Council, the Midlothian County Council, and the Peebles Town Council have petitioned the Government about hospital services, and that in South Midlothian we have to carry our casualties to Edinburgh hospitals. I submit that this state of affairs is intolerable.
I have approached the hospital board and the Midlothian County Council has done so, but the board simply says "We are in the hopeless position that we do not get the money from Westminster." It is the Minister's job to see that we get it. That is why we have raised this matter tonight. It is the job of the Scottish Office to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put the position plainly to him, because it is rousing the ire of the people of Scotland..
Commander Galbraith: I pointed out that the priorities were fixed by the regional hospital board and not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I beg the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind, because neither of the projects he has mentioned are on the list of priorities of the board.
Mr. Pryde: Before the Christmas Recess I took a deputation to the board and was told, "We are not getting the money. If we got the money we would carry out your wishes." I suggest that the Edinburgh hospitals are being strained—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Kilmardinny School, Bearsden
  Kilmardinny School, Bearsden
  Toscaig-Kyle Ferry Service
  Toscaig-Kyle Ferry Service
  Police Forces (Strength)
  Police Forces (Strength)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Housing (Certificates of Disrepair)
  Housing (Certificates of Disrepair)
  CIVIL DEFENCE
  CIVIL DEFENCE
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND MR. MOLOTOV (CORRESPONDENCE)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND MR. MOLOTOV (CORRESPONDENCE)
  NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS
  NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Royal Commission on Civil Service (Evidence)
  Royal Commission on Civil Service (Evidence)
  Her Late Majesty Queen Mary (Commemorative Plaque)
  Her Late Majesty Queen Mary (Commemorative Plaque)
RESEARCH
  Corrosion
  Corrosion
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Geological Survey
  Geological Survey
  Building Industry (Contribution)
  Building Industry (Contribution)
  Fuel Research Station, Stevenage
  Fuel Research Station, Stevenage
BRITISH ARMY
  Army Kinema Corporation (British Films)
  Army Kinema Corporation (British Films)
  Barn Fire Accident, Austria
  Barn Fire Accident, Austria
  National Service (Discharged Personnel)
  National Service (Discharged Personnel)
  MONOPOLIES COMMISSION (REPORTS)
  MONOPOLIES COMMISSION (REPORTS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (PROMOTION COMPETITION)
  CIVIL SERVICE (PROMOTION COMPETITION)
  OVERSEAS SHIPPING REPAIRS (S.S. "BRAEMAR CASTLE")
  OVERSEAS SHIPPING REPAIRS (S.S. "BRAEMAR CASTLE")
  STATIONERY OFFICE (MUSEUM PUBLICATIONS)
  STATIONERY OFFICE (MUSEUM PUBLICATIONS)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Reorganisation Proposals (Interim Statement)
  Reorganisation Proposals (Interim Statement)
  Shops and Business Premises (Rating)
  Shops and Business Premises (Rating)
  Mining Subsidence
  Mining Subsidence
  Montague Gardens, Holborn (Requisitioning)
  Montague Gardens, Holborn (Requisitioning)
HOUSING
  Furnished Lettings
  Furnished Lettings
  Repairs and Rents Act
  Repairs and Rents Act
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Processes (Dust)
  Industrial Processes (Dust)
  Ship-Repair Workers (London Docks)
  Ship-Repair Workers (London Docks)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (POLICE CADETS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (POLICE CADETS)
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  VIET-NAM (VIET-MINH AUTHORITIES)
  VIET-NAM (VIET-MINH AUTHORITIES)
  OIL (UNITED NATIONS REPORT)
  OIL (UNITED NATIONS REPORT)
  MALTA (N.A.T.O. STAFF)
  MALTA (N.A.T.O. STAFF)
COAL
  Pneumoconiosis and Silicosis, Scotland
  Pneumoconiosis and Silicosis, Scotland
  Fuel Office, Batley
  Fuel Office, Batley
  SWISS SANATORIA SCHEME (TERMINATION)
  SWISS SANATORIA SCHEME (TERMINATION)
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, ASHINGTON
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, ASHINGTON
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  CORN EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  NEW TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS
  2.36 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in connecting new telephones, and what indication can be given of future prospects.]
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, in 1951 there were nearly half a million people waiting for telephones and new connections were being supplied at the rate of 355,000 per annum. By 1954 this rate had been stepped up to 410,000. Meanwhile, there has been a great increase in the demand for telephones, the number of new applications received in 1953 and 1954 being respectively 15 per cent. and 30 per cent. greater than in 1952. Despite this, we managed to reduce the waiting list to 360,000 by December 31, 1954, but
  2
  demand continues to increase and in January was the highest ever recorded.
  Our capital investment was £50 million in 1951–52 and £70 million in 1954–55. The Post Office Estimate for 1955–56 includes provision for £81 million which should enable us to supply at least 455,000 new connections in the coming year. This is an increase of 28 per cent. over the rate in 1951, and nearly double the pre-war record of 240,000. We hope to increase this figure still further in following years. The arrears of work to be overtaken are very great, and there are some black spots where relief cannot be given quickly, however great our resources may be, because new buildings and telephone exchanges are needed. These take time to provide but I can assure your Lordships that we are really on the offensive and are determined to do all we can to solve the problem as soon as possible.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and say how gratified your Lordships will be to hear this story of continued progress in the Post Office ever since the war.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, does not this show added proof of the success of public enterprise?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl can give the figure for the waiting list at the moment? He gave the figure for December, 1954.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we have the exact figure only periodically, but I think it is round about the 350,000 mark now, or just a little under.

  I.T.A. BROADCASTING HOURS
  2.38 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the hours of broadcasting for the Independent Television Authority have yet been decided.]
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I have fully discussed this question of television broadcasting hours with the I.T.A. and the B.B.C., and I have agreed to the following arrangements, which will apply to both organisations. For the five days, Monday to Friday, there will be a maximum of 35 hours actual broadcasting, with a maximum of 8 hours on any one day. Subject to this overall limitation, broadcasting will not start before 9 a.m. or go on after 11 p.m. at the latest. There will be a closed period from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. and not more than 2 hours broadcasting before 1 p.m. On Saturday and Sunday there will be a maximum of 15 hours actual broadcasting for the two days, with a maximum of 8 hours on Saturday and 7¾ hours on Sunday.
  Broadcasting on Saturday will be permitted between the same hours as for Monday to Friday. Broadcasting on Sunday will be permitted between 2 p.m. and 11 p.m., with a closed period from 6.15 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. and a change of programme at 7.45 p.m. This closed period and change of programme at 7.45 p.m. have been arranged to meet the view of the Churches that television programmes should as far as possible avoid the time of Sunday evening services. To meet Church opinion, also, it has been agreed at the original suggestion of the programme companies that any programmes between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Sundays—the normal Sunday School period—shall be designed for adults.
  Religious services may be broadcast outside the permitted hours and in addition to the daily maximum; on individual occasions the daily maximum may be exceeded in order to broadcast outside events.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for that statement, which I think will be particularly valuable because there has
  4
  been a good deal of speculation in the Press. May I ask him whether these arrangements about times of broadcasting and hours of broadcasting have been agreed between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C.?
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, they have been agreed between myself and both parties. There have been informal discussions between the two parties themselves, but I was at the centre of the discussions.

  POLICE PENSIONS DRAFT REGULATIONS, 1955
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, there are two similar Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. With the permission of the House, perhaps I may speak briefly on them together. The principal purpose of both sets of regulations forming the subject of the Motions is to grant increases in pensions corresponding to those provided under the National Insurance Act, 1954, to the widows and children of certain police officers who are not eligible to receive them under the National Insurance scheme direct. The regulations are in no way controversial and the Police Council whom my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has consulted, as required by the Police Pensions Act, have expressed their agreement with them.
  I should perhaps mention that in the light of your Lordships' comments—and some really outspoken comments at that—when similar changes in the regulations were made on a previous occasion, my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have taken this opportunity of consolidating the regulations to the extent permitted by the Police Pensions Act, 1948. For the reasons which the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Simonds, explained, the Act does not permit of a complete consolidation. Advantage has been taken in the consolidation to tidy up the regulations, to remedy a number of deficiencies, and to omit some provisions. I commend these Regulations to your Lordships in the belief that they will assist a body of pensioners who

  5
  deserve well of the community. I beg to move the first of the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the Police Pensions Draft Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  POLICE PENSIONS (No. 2) DRAFT REGULATIONS, 1955
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the Police Pensions (No. 2) Draft Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) DRAFT REGULATIONS, 1955
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, these Regulations, and the further set relating to Scotland, which stand on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Home, make for Scotland exactly the same changes as the two sets of Regulations for England and Wales which your Lordships have just been good enough to approve. Previously existing differences between the Scottish and the English codes have, of course, been carried forward, but there is no new point of difference for me to bring to your Lordships' attention. I beg to move the first Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Home.
  Moved, That the Police Pensions (Scotland) Draft Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) DRAFT REGULATIONS, 1955
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Home, I beg to move this Motion.
  Moved, That the Police Pensions (Scotland) (No. 2) Draft Regulations, 1955,
  6
  reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  AIR FORCE BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  ARMY BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  REVISION OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE ACTS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL
  2.47 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the purpose of this small Bill, with which I need not delay the House for more than a few moments, is to change the method by which Exchequer grants may be paid towards the cost of expenditure incurred by local authorities in providing water supplies and sewerage in rural areas. These grants are paid under the provisions of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, which laid down that the grant must normally be paid by a lump sum. This present Bill gives discretionary powers to the Minister to pay either by a lump sum or by instalments; but for any future schemes payment will usually be made by a series of equal half-yearly instalments spread over a period of thirty years. In those cases where a grant has already been promised but has not yet been paid, or paid in full, the amount outstanding will normally be paid by instalments.
  The purpose and object of this change is to bring water supply and sewerage into line with other grant-aided services, the cost of which is usually met by half-yearly or yearly payments. The new method has the definite advantage of reducing the amount to be provided in the Budget year by year for the next few years. For instance, without this Bill a

  7
  sum of nearly £8 million would have to be provided in the next financial year, but when the Bill becomes law the sum to be provided in the next financial year will be in the neighbourhood of 1½million.
  I should perhaps mention here that local authorities will not suffer in any way by reason of this change. Let me give the House a simple example. Let me assume that a grant paid in a lump sum would amount to a figure of £20,000; under present arrangements the local authority would borrow the total cost of the work, less the grant of £20,000. In future, after the passing of this Bill, the local authority will borrow the total cost of the work, but the instalments will represent the loan charges on the figure of £20,000 calculated on the rate of interest in force at the time of the promise for loans obtained from the Public Works Loan Board. I think I need say no more on the purpose of this small Bill. I commend the proposals to the House. I beg to move that it now be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation of this very simple Bill. Because some noble Lords who are much more knowledgeable on the subject than I am are prevented by illness from being here this afternoon, our examination of this Bill is probably not as searching as it might otherwise be, but I should like the noble Earl to explain something that was said in another place in the course of the debates on this Bill. It was said that although the passing of the Bill will mean a relief to the Exchequer in the coming financial year, over the period of thirty years or so the result will be adverse to the Exchequer—in other words, the taxpayer will have to pay a sum of about £19 million because of interest charges. I should be glad if the noble Earl could explain whether this is the case and whether, as compensation, we can look for a real improvement and acceleration in the provision of rural water supplies and sewerage. If he can convince us of that, we shall have nothing but praise for the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think I can quickly reply to the re-
  8
  marks which have been made by the noble Earl. As I pointed out in the course of my remarks in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, a tremendous advantage will be achieved by the Exchequer in the Budget for this year—namely, by cutting the expenditure from £8 million to £1½ million. It is perfectly true that in the long run, owing to the interest which is payable on the capital sums which are given by the Exchequer to local authorities, the ultimate effect will be to increase the cost by some £19 to £20 million in England and Wales and by £9 in Scotland, spread over a period of thirty years. But I think that the noble Earl will observe that it is infinitely preferable that the Exchequer should have a clear indication of what they are involved in year by year. As I have said, the change will bring these grants into line with Exchequer grants which are made in other services, and although in the long run it may well cost more, nevertheless I think it will be for the general benefit.
  LORD WISE: Before the noble Earl sits down, can he reply to the last question of my noble friend, whether this Bill will in any way expedite or improve rural water supplies and sewerage?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The purpose of the Bill is not to expedite or to improve the sewerage or water supplies of rural areas, but merely to put the accountancy on a different basis from what it has been hitherto. The principal Act of 1944 enabled the Treasury to make grants in England and Wales to the extent of £45 million, and in Scotland to the extent of £20 million, giving a total of £65 million. The amount which has been committed under the principal Act at the present moment is something approaching £50 million, and in the course of a very short time it will be necessary again to come to Parliament in order to enable additional sums of money to be given in grants to local authorities for the provision of these services in rural areas. I will not say that the Bill in itself will improve the existing system of provision of water and sewerage to local authorities, but I think it is perfectly clear that the 1944 Act has been of great advantage to local authorities.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM BILL
  2.55 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD GLYN: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I recognise that although it is a small Bill, in which I ask your Lordships to agree to certain reforms, it deals with an important aspect of things in our country. Anybody of my age who is old enough to have been in both wars has a feeling of special regard concerning the Imperial War Museum, which has been established for a long time and which is unique in its presentation of the events of those two great wars. At the present moment it is situated on the other side of the river a short distance from this House; but because it is on the other side of the river far too few people are inclined to visit it. I think it is of great importance in these days that people should visit that exhibition and pay some tribute to those who died fighting in the two world wars, and also to recognise the devoted service of Mr. Bradley and his assistants who have kept the museum up to date. I think it is unique in all the countries which fought in the great wars as allies. This museum presents a more comprehensive view of what took place than any other exhibition of its kind.
  The purpose of this Bill is, first, to amend the provisions relating to the constitution of the Board of Trustees, and secondly, to extend the Trustees' powers of lending. It is rather extraordinary that a national museum of this kind should have continued with its present constitution in spite of all the many changes in the British Commonwealth. One of the purposes of the Bill is to bring that constitution up to date and to keep it up to date, because obviously it is a poor reflection on the estimation we have for the museum that for so long it should have been constituted in a way which is not representative of the British Commonwealth. Therefore, those provisions in the Bill are merely to bring it up to date and, by Orders in Council, to keep it up to date should there be any other changes in the organisation of the British Commonwealth.
  In regard to the second part of the Bill, which deals with loans of pictures and other exhibits, any noble Lord who goes to the museum and takes the trouble to
  10
  see the pictures will realise three things, the first being that some of the pictures are by artists of great fame and reputation; they are unique examples of their work. There were, I think, six artists of great fame and reputation who produced those works in the first war, at great personal risk to themselves. If one was oneself a participant in some theatre in those wars and goes and sees those pictures, it is astonishing how the atmosphere and the feeling are brought back. Therefore, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill now before your Lordships, I feel I am moving something more than an ordinary Bill, because we are row at the turn, and there is a change of attitude towards warfare.
  When first the Cabinet agreed that there should be an imperial War Museum, there were some, I know, who felt that such an exhibition was wrong: that it would encourage the militant spirit. That is far from being the case. I believe the Imperial War Museum shows people the follies of war; and in these days this is probably the last exhibition that will ever exist of what we choose to call conventional weapons and of the efforts made in their use. In the atomic age, if a war takes place, there will be no memorial of any weapon; there will be nothing left to exhibit. Therefore it seems to me that one can commend this Imperial War Museum as something which deserves the special attention of all your Lordships at the present time.
  There are also strong reasons to believe that when visitors from the countries of the Commonwealth who came to the aid of the Mother Country in the wars and united with us in achieving victory come here, it is highly important that they should be able to see exhibited at this museum in London representations of the great efforts that they made to bring about victory in the wars. It is therefore of particular importance that those clauses in respect of lending powers should be accepted by your Lordships' House, so as to spread those powers more widely and to permit the Committee of the Council to lend these pictures, under the strict control of the museum, so that they may be more clearly understood. There are actually more than 4,000 pictures there, a large proportion stacked in a corridor, well looked after but not visible.

  11
  It seems a waste of the talents of the artists who drew them and of the meaning they have to convey—the efforts that were made to win the wars. If those pictures could be more widely seen by people in the institutions and establishments to which it is proposed to lend them, I cannot conceive that anything but good would result. I hope that the Commonwealth High Commissioners, who have nominally been on the Committee and have done a great deal of work on the Council, will now appoint representatives who can attend more readily and perhaps be more in touch with the feeling of their different countries in the Commonwealth.
  There is one other matter which I dare to mention. If the country contributes, as it does, considerable sums towards art galleries and museums, it is necessary for Parliament occasionally to consider their constitution and to see whether they are carrying out the purposes for which they were formed. So far as the Imperial War Museum is concerned, from the very day it was opened, except for those periods during the war when the museum suffered forty-one incidents under enemy attack, the directorate has been astonishingly successful in keeping the museum up to date, changing the exhibits from week to week and month to month so that they are always topical. Visitors to the museum can see exhibits showing action not only by the British but, in many cases, by our enemies. I feel it is high time that Parliament took a hand to see that the organisation of museums is really up to date and that full recognition is given to the self-denying sacrifice of those responsible. It is sad that comparatively few people visit this Museum, for so much can be gained by doing so. I feel it is a great privilege to have been allowed to move the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House, because I believe that more publicity is necessary so that more people may see the work being done by the directorate of the museum. I am sure that great good would result, for visitors can not only enjoy an interesting time but also be well rewarded, on leaving, by the feeling that those who died in war, and made their sacrifice, are well remembered. There is no other organisation of which I know which so represents the weapons and means by which victory was achieved.
  12
  The time may now have come to look to other museums and galleries in the country. Such an effort to make them more representative and attractive to the public might be of great assistance to those in charge of their administration. At the moment, for understandable reasons of economy, the Treasury do not permit any expenditure on advertising, but it is to be hoped that the London Transport Executive and similar organisations may make more use of posters to draw public attention to this museum. Housed in the old Bethlem Hospital on the other side of the river, the museum is in a very suitable place, but its surroundings are depressing beyond words, and give one a feeling of desolation similar to that of the battlefield of Ypres. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope that the House will recognise that in this Imperial War Museum the country possesses an asset of very great value. Our thanks are due to all who have been responsible for its care and maintenance. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Glyn.)
  3.5 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, for sponsoring this Bill in your Lordships' House to-day. We on this side of the House bless the Bill in principle, although there are some criticisms and suggestions which I desire to offer. Perhaps like most noble Lords here to-day, I had never entered the Imperial War Museum until yesterday. I had often intended to do so but as the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, said, not only is it off the beaten track but it is off almost any track and not easy to find. As the subject was coming before the House I yesterday visited the museum with my wife. We were glad to find there the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who was being shown round by a posse of officials; but there was no-one else, except for a woman who had brought in a small boy for what can only have been domestic reasons, for one of his age could hardly have been interested in the pictures.
  When I visit a museum or exhibition I always ask first for a guide book, and I was particularly anxious to have one on this occasion, for it is not easy to find one's way among the many exhibits at

  13
  the museum. Incidentally, the building was once known as Bethlem Hospital, better know as "Bedlam." It would be interesting to know the exact reasons why the Government of the day, whichever it was, decided to house the Imperial War Museum in Bedlam. Unfortunately, I understood from the custodian that no guide book to the museum is printed. In a museum of this kind, displaying most interesting exhibits, though not in the best of order, there should be a guide book. That is the first criticism I would make.
  The museum is in Lambeth and is no doubt very conveniently situated for the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, should he wish to visit it; but it is not particularly convenient for other people. We on this side of the House would like to know the average attendance figures over the year and perhaps, when the noble Minister comes to reply, he will be able to inform us of those figures. He may also be able to explain why it was decided to place this museum in this position and not in the area which the noble Lord, Lord Haldane, called "the Kensington Charlottenberg," where many other museums are situated, an area visited by large numbers of schoolchildren and others in organised parties. On recent occasions when I have visited the Imperial Institute I have been pleased to note that, possibly as the result of the two debates in this House, the Imperial Institute was crowded, especially with children, although unfortunately the authorities have not yet taken my advice to open the main entrance to children and others who pass by.
  Opposite the Imperial War Museum is another interesting link with the past—the house where Admiral Bligh once lived. As your Lordships know, he was the only man to have the melancholy distinction of being twice turned off his ship owing to mutiny—once as Captain, in the South Seas, and once as Admiral at the Nore. Reverting to the Imperial War Museum itself, the exhibits, as Lord Glyn has told us, deal with the last two wars. They do not deal with more ancient ones, as do the exhibits in the old Banqueting Hall in Whitehall. Nor does this museum give any indication of future wars. The exhibits deal with what are called "conventional'' weapons, though I think that the term "conventional" is rather ridi-
  14
  culous, because I imagine that it is just as objectionable to be killed by a conventional weapon as by any other. Then, possibly because of lack of space, modern methods of museum display are not obvious at the Imperial War Museum. Moreover—though I think it is only fair to say that the building was badly damaged in the war by flying bombs and so on—not all the galleries are available for the exhibits. Still, if your Lordships go to the Imperial Institute, which is of great interest in these days, you will see there a great difference in the display of articles, and objects of interest as compared with the rather higgledy-piggledy methods—if one can call them methods—which are followed at the Imperial War Museum.
  Coming now to the Bill and the proposals in it, we find that the Board of Trustees is to be constituted as set out in the Schedule; and the first question which comes to my mind relates to the number of members to be appointed and by whom they are to be appointed. No fewer than nine members are to be appointed by the Treasury. The Admiralty and the Departments of the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air—which are, of course, particularly concerned with the Museum—have only one each, and great Dominions like Canada and Australia also have only one each. When we come to the Colonies, we find that, except for the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, they have none at all. Nor have the Ministry of Defence, who I should have thought might have been given one. So we would first ask why the nomination of nine members lies with the Treasury—which has no particular connection with war, except for having to find the means to pay for it—while the Service Departments have only one each, and the Ministry of Defence none. We should also like to ask why important Colonial Territories, such as the Gold Coast, Nigeria, Malaya and the West Indies, have no right of nomination, whereas the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland has the right to nominate one member. I have no objection to that, of course—in fact I am delighted that they should have a member; but I fail to see why those other territories to which I have referred have none, especially in view of the fact that the West African Frontier Force played a great part in the last war and that they, or their predecessors, also

  15
  played a considerable part in the war before that. I feel, therefore, that if there are to be nominations these places should have one each.
  Then I turn to the question of loans of exhibits, provided for in Clause 2. I assume there is no doubt that exhibits can be loaned to Colonial Territories, Protectorates and so on, if they are needed for their purposes. I should like to ask what is the purpose of Clause 2 (2). I take it as a sort of pious hint to the Board, because it does not seem to carry the Bill forward, in view of the very wide terms of Clause 2 (1). Perhaps we can have some indication upon that point.
  Then there is the question of Treasury sanction. Why should it be necessary for the Board to obtain the sanction of the Treasury before loans of exhibits are made to places abroad? I should not have thought that this was a matter in which the Treasury had any particular claim for their sanction to be a prerequisite for the loan of exhibits abroad. Here again I should have thought it was a matter for the Service Departments, the Ministry of Defence, and the Ministry of Works, rather than for the Treasury. I do not see why, before any exhibit is loaned, not only abroad but for public exhibition in the United Kingdom or else-where, or to any Government Department or other authority, Treasury consent should have to be obtained.
  If the Secretary of State for War wants to have an exhibit relating to the Army, in either the First or Second World War, he will have to go to the Treasury and get their consent. I should have thought that that was a most improper procedure. Certainly it is calculated still more to place the Treasury in the position which we know it has been getting into in recent years—that of being a sort of Pooh Bah, and having the final say in almost anything. When it comes to the case of whether exhibits should be loaned to anyone, one would think that that was a matter which the trustees could well decide for themselves, and that, if any other decision is called for, it should be that of some functionary other than the Treasury—some Department such as the Ministry of Works or something of that kind. Generally speaking, we on this side of the House have no objection to the main principle of the Bill. I have outlined a few
  16
  criticisms and suggestions which we desire to make. We shall be glad to have an answer upon them from the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
  3.17 p.m.
  LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill, which I think is very much overdue. It is true that the present housing of the Imperial War Museum is very much out of the ordinary run. I have paid two or three visits to it, but I seem to remember that after the First World War, when it was housed in a corner of the Imperial Institute, though it was all too crowded, what there was to show undoubtedly did attract a large number of people. I cannot help thinking that if in the future it were possible for this museum to be properly housed in Museum Road, or some central area of London, it would attract a large number of people.
  I am particularly in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, in what he said about the collection of pictures. It is a very remarkable collection, and, as he said, it includes many works of notable artists who took part in both world wars. One cannot help feeling that their work is wasted if the pictures are merely stacked, though it may be that they are well looked after. It seems to me that it might be a good thing if retrospective exhibitions of these works of either world war were held from time to time—perhaps in a room at the Tate Gallery. I believe that it would arouse a great deal of interest, as we all know special exhibitions at the Tate have done in the past. That is just a suggestion which I throw out, so that these works may be more easily available for viewing by the public. I think such an exhibition would attract a good deal of interest, and perhaps the noble Earl will keep my suggestion in mind. On the whole, I feel that this is a very good Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  3.20 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I wish to say that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, for presenting this Bill, and I should like to congratulate him upon his very moving and clear speech, with a great deal of which I agree. But I must say that I

  17
  am opposed in principle to this new practice of lending pictures from public collections on unrestricted loan to places where they will no longer be readily available. It would be much better, in my view, if museums and galleries built up proper reserve collections of pictures which they have not the space to show publicly. Also I think that greater effort might be made to increase exhibition space generally by a more enlightened policy on the part of the Government. However, I agree that the case of the Imperial War Museum is rather different. Many of these pictures are of little artistic merit; their interest lies mainly in the fact that they are records of one or other of two world wars. I agree that it is right that some of them should hang on the walls of military establishments, particularly those which are not only factual records but are also pleasing works of art. But I submit that there are certain pictures by some of our best artists which should always be kept together as they are important for both historical and stylistic reasons.
  When during the First World War it was decided to have a pictorial record made, the first artists to be given permits were mainly those of an academic kind. But it was soon found that these worthy painters were not capable of portraying the psychological horrors of modern warfare. Then it was that the Government were advised by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, the late Arnold Bennett, and one or two others, to commission some of the young avant-garde painters; painters who had been influenced by those great stylistic innovations on the Continent which had revolutionised painting during the early years of this century, just prior to 1914. The result is a most impressive series of canvases by artists like Nevinson, Wyndham Lewis, William Roberts and Paul Nash. These are works of art in their own right and some of the finest works ever to be produced by these artists. They are very important, too, for any study of Twentieth Century English painting. Above all, they are moving documents of what modern warfare meant to the ordinary soldier. In their way they are as poignant an epitaph of a lost generation as are the poems, to which they are related, of Wilfrid Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Rupert Brooke. It is possible to read these and other Georgian poets in one
  18
  collection of volumes, thanks to the editorship of the late Sir Edward Marsh. I trust that these paintings will likewise be kept together in one collection.
  Another group of paintings, by artists like Orpen, Augustus John and Eric Kennington, portrayed the various personalities at the Paris Peace Conference, like Allenby, Lawrence of Arabia and the Emir Feisal. These are magnificent portraits: but they are not only that; they are also pictures of the greatest historical interest. A third group contains the paintings of the Second World War. In this case there was an enlightened policy from the beginning. The War Artists' Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Clark, at once commissioned some of our leading artists. The result is another fine group of paintings by people like Paul Nash, Graham Sutherland, John Piper, and others, containing unforgettable records of the heroism and anguish of the second conflict.
  Thus, I feel that this collection is not merely one of historical interest; it contains some of the finest examples of our best modern artists. Indeed, some of these artists are better represented at the Imperial War Museum than they are at the Tate Gallery. It would be unfortunate if any of these particular pictures were dispersed. So that a check can be kept on them, I venture to suggest that they should be included as a Schedule to this Bill as being exempt from its provisions, except, of course, as temporary loans to special exhibitions. I do not think that this should be difficult as they are not many in number. The noble Earl who is to reply for the Government may tell me that this is a matter for the Trustees. But may I remind him of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, at the time of the National Gallery Bill. If I may quote from memory, he said: "I trust Trustees to do that for which they are appointed, but I trust Statutes even more."
  In conclusion, I should like to remind your Lordships that when the Imperial War Museum was established in 1920, the first Director was Sir Martin Conway, later Lord Conway of Alington, a distinguished art-historian. This shows, I think, the great importance which the Government of the day attached to the artistic side of the picture collection. I

  19
  feel somehow that this side does not receive sufficient importance to-day. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, there is no catalogue of the pictures available. I have checked up on this and find that the last catalogue was produced in 1924. It has long been out of print, and, of course, it does not contain any pictures done in the Second World War. In my view there should be available for the public an inventory of the whole collection, so that interested persons can see what is there; also, there should be a select catalogue of the most important pictures of the two World Wars. This catalogue, I suggest, might contain an introduction on the rôle of the artist in war time, with a historical sketch of the part played by artists generally in the two wars. I submit that this would provide a worthy memorial of those who served, and also of those who, whilst serving, depicted the struggle.
  3.29 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I do not know whether I may be allowed to say a word about this Bill, speaking as a Trustee of the Imperial War Museum. Unfortunately, owing to a public engagement, I have only just been able to reach the House. I can assure the noble Lord who has just spoken that every word he has said will be carefully noted by the Trustees. The Board of Trustees are a body of real enthusiasts and they are just as proud of the collection as the noble Lord. It is difficult to provide at all times an adequate collection of all the exhibits in the museum, partly for reasons of finance. Of course, we are severely restricted by the Treasury in the amount we may spend—quite rightly, because we know it is necessary. But as a Board of Trustees we have never taken the attitude that we know the last word: we are always ready to try to improve not only the collection but the way in which it is displayed and deployed for the benefit of the public.
  This Bill will do a great deal to regularise the position with regard to the loan of pictures. I am glad of that, and I know that my colleagues on the Board are, too, because such a provision has been needed for a long time. It is not only a question of what pictures should be loaned, but on what conditions, and where they should be hung when they are loaned. It has been the policy of the
  20
  trustees to lend pictures to great public art galleries, and the like, and a certain number of pictures have also gone to messes of the Imperial Forces. The Government, too, have made demands on the Imperial War Museum for pictures for Government offices and so on. We take a great deal of trouble to ensure that the pictures we have are properly safeguarded and properly hung.
  The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi (unfortunately, it is the only one I have been able to hear) was concentrated on pictures; but the Imperial War Museum is concerned with an enormous number of exhibits of war material of all sorts, not only of the last war but of all wars ever since the First World War. The difficulty is to find space in the museum to hang the pictures. There are over 8,000 pictures for which we are custodians and trustees, and obviously no gallery in the country could hang 8,000 pictures, especially when it discharges the duty of displaying many other exhibits, such as those to which I have referred. We do try to space them out evenly, and we do try to vary the selection from time to time. I think that is the right policy—indeed, it is the only one that we can adopt. We feel that our collection of exhibits, and especially the examples of the works of Muirhead Bone and others, are national relics on the highest scale and should be safeguarded as such. I only hope that, as time goes on, the Government will make available to us as much money as possible. We must always have regard to how much money can be spent on this and that, and everybody understands the reasons for it; but if and when the day comes that it is possible for the Government to give approval to the new galleries for which we have asked, and for which plans are all ready, I hope that the Government will do what they can for the Imperial War Museum.
  The attendances at the museum are extremely good—of course, like the attendances at all museums they vary with the weather—and they tend to go up as the location of the museum becomes better known. It is rather off the beaten track of museums to go over to the South Bank and down Lambeth Road, but as we are getting better known an increasing number of people come to

  21
  the museum. I hope that noble Lords who have not been there will take an opportunity of visiting the museum, because it is really worth while to see the large number of people who go and spend hours studying exhibits of one sort and another. It is not a museum for the glorification of war; it is a museum for the glorification of a national effort unequalled in all our history, and it is as such that we as a Board look upon it. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that his remarks are most valuable and that we shall take careful note of them.
  3.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill, but I would ask your Lordships to direct your attention for a few moments to the provision in Clause 2 (4) (b). It seems to me a little unfair for the museum to be able after twenty-five years, whether the donor be alive or not, to abrogate any condition attached to the gift or the bequest. If they thought the condition was unreasonable, one assumes that they would not have accepted the gift in the first place. I rise really to ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether there is any precedent for this in any other museum Bill. I am more concerned with gifts than with bequests. For example, if I, at the age of twenty-six, should have something to offer the Imperial War Museum which they consider to be of national interest (unfortunately, I have not anything) and I attach a condition to the gift that it shall not go to my father's regiment—possibly because I had had a disagreement with the regiment about it—it seems to me somewhat unfair that twenty-five years from now, when I am fifty-one, the Imperial War Museum can cheerfully turn round and lend it under the provisions of the Bill. It seems to me that it is more in keeping for any condition which has been accepted by the museum to be observed, at least during the lifetime of the donor.
  3.38 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on that last point. Noble Lords will perhaps remember that when Bismarck was considering where to deposit the last volume of his memoirs he hesitated between Pierpont Morgan and the Bank of England, and finally decided in favour of the Bank of England as being the more likely to
  22
  carry out his instructions and his wishes with exactitude. I am afraid that a clause of this kind will leave people in this world with one possible choice, and that will be Pierpont Morgan.
  3.39 p.m.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I am sure it is a wholly good thing that we should to-day have emphasised the quality of the museum to which this Bill refers. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, have spoken as they have of the quality and the workmanship to be found there. I was greatly fascinated when I went there, as I believe was the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—I saw him reading the account of the Armistice of 1918 with a fascination which I think he generally reserves for the evening newspapers. The museum has a characteristic interest of its own which rather distinguishes it from any other. I could not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when he used the word "higgledy-piggledy." I thought it was one of the best documented museums that I had seen for a long time, every exhibit having been carefully marked to indicate its history. I was most impressed with the detailed information given.
  LORD OGMORE: I should have liked a document which enabled me to see the general layout of the museum; and in view of the lack of space, I am afraid I must stick to "higgledy-piggledy." I do not think it is as well laid out as would be possible if the museum had all its galleries available.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is true, of course; but I thought the description of each item was extremely good. Several noble Lords have made suggestions about a catalogue. I am informed that the First World War catalogue was published in 1920 and is on sale to-day. A similar catalogue for the 1939–45 War is in typescript and will be published in due course. I hope that that meets the point the noble Lord has in mind.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I do not think there is a catalogue of the pictures. It was the pictures to which I was referring, and not a general catalogue of the whole museum.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am afraid I have nothing further to add on that

  23
  matter, but I understood the catalogue would cover all the objects in the museum. Several noble Lords have asked me about the site. This museum started in the Crystal Palace in 1920, and after one or two moves it settled at the site of Bedlam in the year 1936. I rather suspect there was no convenient place at that time in the more usual museum areas of this city. In spite of what the noble Lord says, the building is quite substantial. It is not small, and I think it would be difficult to find, in South Kensington or elsewhere, a suitable place to accommodate the many items which belong to the museum.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: Why is there this prejudice against going a short way across the river to the south side? Is there some psychological implication about it?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure the noble Lord will refer his question to the noble Lord sitting in front of him. I personally know of no prejudice against the south side, and I am only trying to answer questions which have been put to me. There is a perfectly good bus service, and there is no difficulty in getting to the present site. The noble Lord asked a number of questions—somewhat critically—about the Treasury appointments to the Board. The Treasury is the Department responsible to Parliament for all museums and galleries. That is the reason they have the power to make a number of appointments. They do not, of course, appoint Treasury officials; they appoint people of distinction to hold office, and they ask the other Departments to come in merely because of this special interest in the subject. I do not think it has been mentioned that the noble and gallant Viscount, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope, is the present Chairman. I think we can rest assured, therefore, the well-being of the museum is in sure hands.
  I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for giving us the benefit of his first-hand knowledge on the particular points which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised and to which I shall refer in a moment. I would also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies may make an appointment if
  24
  he wishes, and, I imagine, can make recommendations that may be necessary in regard to Colonial matters. I am not quite certain that there is any need for the Ministry of Defence to make an appointment. I have no doubt that if my right honourable friend the Minister has any recommendations, he can put forward suggestions to that effect. I would also point out what may have escaped the noble Lord's notice. Clause 1 (2) says:
  "Her Majesty may from time to time by Order in Council make further provision with respect to the membership …"
  That means that at any time it may seem reasonable, the Schedule can be altered as thought appropriate.
  LORD OGMORE: May I ask why they do not do it now? After all, why trouble Her Majesty at a later stage, when we are dealing with the Bill now? The noble Earl says that the Secretary of State for the Colonies can appoint, but so can the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. Yet Canada and Australia have the right to appoint also. I do not want to take the right away from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I only say that places like the Gold Coast and Nigeria, which have contributed large Colonial forces, should also be allowed to appoint.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Committee already numbers twenty-five, and I think it is going a little far. I know the noble Lord has a prejudice against the Treasury in this respect, but it happens to be the Department responsible to Parliament for galleries and museums. I have no reason to suppose that the noble Lord will differ from the selection they will make in making appointments to this Committee.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Furness, asked about Clause 2 (4) (b). This is almost common form. A similar clause was included in the National Galleries Bill, 1883, and repeated last year in the Tate Gallery and National Gallery Bills. Actually, this paragraph will seldom apply to this museum, because nearly all the exhibits here are commissioned or purchased by the Government. There are very few donations, and few bequests. I think it is generally felt that museums should not be tied indefinitely by bequests of this character, and the only thing they take here is a statutory right to vary the terms of the bequest after a lapse of time

  25
  where they think it appropriate. We have on a number of occasions in the past discussed cases where charitable donations can be an unusual and difficult burden on the trustees whose duty it is to carry out the conditions attaching to those donations. I do not think this power has ever been objected to, and certainly I do not think any action would be taken without consulting the donor or the trustees of the donor.
  I commend this Bill strongly to your Lordships, because I think it will confer a real boon on many of our military establishments, messes and other buildings, which in many cases are not very well decorated at the present time. A few pictures will go from the museum, but it will not be a large number. I think there are nearly 8,000 pictures of one sort or another in this museum. About 1,500 will be required by the museum, and perhaps 1,000 or 1,500 will be available for loan. I made inquiries, and I was told that the 6,000-odd pictures in reserve were visited by about 200 people a year. This could well mean that on an average a picture is seen once in thirty years. I think some would be much better hanging on the walls of military establishments of one character or another. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My, Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask whether he can give us any recent figures of attendances?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes, I can. About 180,000 attended the museum last year.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  3.48 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is rather a formal Bill, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I move it in very few words. It is a periodic Bill to enable the National Debt Commissioners to replenish the till of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, from which they can in turn lend to local authorities and certain other bodies. The limits of
  26
  lending are £500 million of fresh loans, and any unlent balance from the last Act is automatically cancelled on the passage of this Bill. The last Act was passed on December 18, 1953, and advances from then up to March 19 last have been £454 million, leaving a balance of £46 million still unadvanced. In addition to prescribing lending limits, the Bill also limits the total commitments to lend, in that the sums lent plus the commitments must never exceed £1,000 million at any one time. On March 19, commitments were £490 million.
  The figure of £500 million for loans is the same as in the last six Acts, but the figure for commitments plus loans is reduced from £1,200 million last year to £1,000 million this year. This is as a result of the general examination and striking off of commitments never likely to mature. It is impossible to say precisely how long the figure of £500 million in this Bill will last. It depends on two unknown factors. First, it is not known what volume of work the local authorities will want to do. Most of the work covers Government grant and the final say is not with them. Secondly, the local authorities have access to private lenders and one does not know to what extent they will want to take advantage of those sources. The Bill is usually calculated to last a year or a bit over. The last one will have lasted fifteen months, but there is nothing to prevent the Government from coming forward with a fresh Bill if funds run out earlier. The Bill speaks for itself, but if there are any questions that noble Lords wish to ask, I will do my best to answer them. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
  3.51 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, this Bill is, in itself, as the noble Lord has just told us, a routine Bill. As such, I think it is very unlikely that anyone in this House, and certainly not the members sitting on these Benches, will wish to oppose its passage into law. In the other place, however, considerable debate arose on the Second Reading on a matter which, though not directly in the Bill, is germane to it and which, therefore, it was perfectly relevant to discuss on the Second Reading of the measure there. The matter arises on the decision

  27
  by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise the rate of interest on loans to local authorities more or less simultaneously with the introduction of this measure into Parliament. If that were purely a financial question it would hardly be necessary to trouble your Lordships with it, but it is not only of interest to financiers but in a way likely directly to concern the man in the street. Therefore I think it is of some importance to mention it in this debate, though I have no wish to weary your Lordships with a long discussion on this subject.
  Your Lordships are, of course, aware that the rate per cent. which is charged to local authorities for borrowing is a long-term or at least a medium-term rate. Therefore, it is not directly connected with the bank rate. Nevertheless, an alteration in the bank rate, as we have seen recently, does have effect on the price of securities, including gilt-edged securities: the higher the bank rate the more the price of gilt-edged securities tends to fall. Therefore, this rate, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently raised, owes its origin to the raising of the bank rate. It is not precisely connected, but indirectly connected. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago raised the bank rate, he simultaneously raised the subsidy for house building, with the result that, though the local authorities had to pay more for the money they borrowed to build houses, owing to the fact of the increase in the subsidy at the same time the net cost to the local authorities, and therefore the rents which they charged, were not affected by the change. In the present instance the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided not to increase the subsidy correspondingly to the increase in the rate of interest. Therefore, unless the ratepayers are to bear a heavier burden, the tenants of houses built or started to be built from this day onwards will have to pay an increased rent which may run into shillings a week.
  I am not going to make a speech about the bank rate now; I have talked to this House about it before and I am certainly not going to do it again to-day. All I desire to point out to your Lordships is that there does arise the curious result that in future there will be two tenants, one in a house in one street and the other in a house in an adjoining street, and one tenant will be paying a rent greater
  28
  than that of his fellow by shillings a week, just because the plan for building his row of houses took place after a certain date in 1955; whereas his fellow tenant will be paying a lower rent because his set of houses was built before a certain date. I think that is rather curious. I conclude by saying that I have pointed out a number of disadvantages in attempting to govern the economic life of the country through the bank rate. This is one of the anomalies which arise out of the decision to take that course.
  3.55 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we all know that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, is a little allergic to the bank rate. We have often argued with him across the floor of this House on the subject. This time he does not make any strong arguments one way or the other. I think we must agree to differ on that matter. At the moment, however, the present Government are running the economy, an economy where our bias is towards freedom. When our economy gets a little too much buoyancy, the medicine that we prescribe is to give a dose of sedative in the shape of the bank rate. I think it only fair to say that one does not give the patient a continued course of sedatives for longer than is necessary. I think the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, would agree that one withdraws the prescription from the patient at the earliest possible moment. I have little doubt that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will wish to do that to our economy.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly allow me to say that you do not get the rent down again? The poor unfortunate tenant will have to go on paying the higher rent for the rest of his life.
  LORD HAWKE: I was just coming to that matter and was about to point out that I think the noble Lord is under a slight misapprehension there, at any rate as regards the vast majority of cases. I have not seen it myself, but I was told that there was an article in the Economist not long ago headed "Mythical Local Authority That Built One House." I believe the noble Lord is referring to that. Undoubtedly, the mythical local authority that built one house would have to charge a higher rent for that house, ad infinitum; but in the vast majority of

  29
  cases these loans are averaged over the whole economy of the local authority. The bigger authorities have a consolidated fund, and every year they work out the interest rate for the total amount in that fund. They charge their services out accordingly. For instance, suppose there was a local authority with a £20 million consolidated fund, and suppose during a period of higher bank rate, when there was a rise from 3¾ per cent, to 4 per cent., they chose to borrow another £1 million: at that one-quarter of one per cent. higher rate, the rate over the whole of their fund would go up by approximately one-eightieth of one per cent., and the amount charged on and spread over the whole of their housing tenants, would actually come to something less than an extra penny a week. We have only to wait for the bank rate to go down again, for them to borrow an amount of about £1 million plus a fraction, and the average would come back to what it was last year. I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension in thinking that this particular rate will apply for ever to any specific works, at any rate in the vast majority of local authorities. Even if it did, it would amount to nothing like shillings per week. I do not think the noble Lord made any further points, and I have done my best to reply to those he has raised.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

  COPYRIGHT AND TELEVISION EXHIBITING RIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  4.1 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time. The provisions of this rather cumbrously named Bill fall into two classes, both roughly in the copyright field. I am afraid that here I must tell your Lordships that copyright is not the simplest branch of the law: connoisseurs of complexity generally put it as a little better than town and country planning and a little worse than rating and valuation. But I warn your Lordships that one of the best-known copyright cases of recent years, in which I had a small professional interest and which found its way to your Lordships' House, turned almost entirely on the point as to whether an
  30
  "i" was dotted or not. You will, therefore, realise that it is possible to become embroiled in a good deal of detail. That I will do my best to avoid, but, since the Bill has not yet been to another place, I feel in duty bound to try to explain it to your Lordships a little more fully than I might otherwise have done.
  This Bill has two main purposes. The first is to permit this country to participate more fully in existing and new international arrangements. The second, which is really hardly akin to it, is to provide a new right in the nature of a performing right in television programmes. I will turn straight away to the first clause. This involves an Amendment to the Copyright Act, 1911, which is still the reigning Act on this subject, and is designed to make possible our adherence to two international copyright conventions which we have just signed. The first of these two agreements provides for our accession to some revisions which were made at Brussels in 1948 to the Berne Copyright Convention of 1886—that is the great Convention which governs most international copyright affairs. The second agreement is to make possible the ratification of the Universal Copyright Convention of 1952, which was sponsored by U.N.E.S.C.O.
  I will say a word about the latest revision of the Berne Convention. The Berne Copyright Union, of which Her Majesty's Government have been a leading member since 1886, provided a high standard of rights in intellectual property. Most civilised nations belong to it. Since this is not a foreign affairs debate, I hope that I shall not be asked to define that term more closely. The member countries have agreed to protect, without formality, the unpublished literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works of the nationals of member countries, and all works of this kind first published in Convention countries, irrespective of the author's nationality. That means that a French book first published in France is given copyright protection here in England. It also means that a Russian book, in the Russian language, published first in France is given protection in France. It does not mean, however, that a French book first published in Russia is given similar protection, because Russia does not belong to the Union.
  EARL JOWITT: What about America?
  LORD MANCROFT: America is quite different. I will come to that point in a moment.
  I should now like to turn to the Copyright Committee which was appointed in 1951 and was presided over first by my noble friend Lord Reading, and then by Sir Henry Gregory. Before I deal in detail with their recommendations, I should like, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to offer our warm thanks for the work that that Committee did and for the extraordinarily able, and may I say readable, Report which they have produced. It was a matter of personal interest and pleasure to me because one of the leading members of that Committee, Mr. F. E. Skone James, was my master in the law. When I was a pupil of his, he attempted to knock some of the law of copyright into my head, with such limited success as I am afraid will soon be only too apparent. The terms of reference of that Committee included the paying of regard to the 1948 Brussels revision to which I have already referred. The United Kingdom has always acceded to each revised text of the Berne Copyright Union. The Committee say in their Report:
  "Our general attitude towards the Berne Union is that we are strongly of the opinion that Her Majesty's Government should accede to the latest text … We have indicated our appreciation of the high standards of the Union. We believe that it is in the interests alike of the general public and authors, composers and artists that the rights of the latter in the works of their brain should not merely enjoy protection in the country of origin, but also that wider protection to be gained only in association with other countries. The protection of intellectual property is not a matter which should be restricted to national boundaries."
  My Lords, those are sentiments with which Her Majesty's Government are wholly in accord.
  The texts of the revised Convention demand the granting of an unqualified period of protection for the life of the author, plus a period of fifty years. The Act of 1911 does that, but with two qualifications. The first qualification is this. During the last twenty-five years of the copyright life of a work, a work can be published, as of right, by anybody who pays a copyright owner the statutory royalty of 10 per cent. The second qualification is that the Judicial Committee
  32
  of the Privy Council have the power, after the death of the author of a work published or performed in public, to override refusal of the copyright owner to permit republication or further performance of the work. So far as I know, that power has never been invoked, but its retention would, of course, be contrary to the Brussels Convention to which I have referred. This Bill removes these two qualifications from our Act, so that for fifty years after the death of the author the copyright owner will now enjoy the sole right to copy, publish and convert and perform in public the published works in which he owns the copyright. The other amendments to the Act of 1911 which are made necessary by the Brussels agreement are quite minor in character, and I do not think I need bother your Lordships with them.
  My Lords, there is an important sidelight on this matter to which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, just drew attention, and that is the situation with regard to America. The United States does not belong, and never has belonged, to the Berne Convention, for domestic and other reasons with which I need not bother your Lordships. But this has been, as I think the House probably knows, a sore point. It has caused much unpleasantness in the circles in which it is concerned, and the effect is that the British copyright owner of an English language work cannot obtain full copyright protection in the United States of America unless his work is not only registered there but also manufactured there—that is, actually printed from type set up in the United States of America. Your Lordships may have noticed the publication recently in this country of a book by T. E. Lawrence called The Mint. It is the story of his life in the Royal Air Force. The book was only recently published here. It was published in America some years ago, and, in order to protect the copyright, it was published and put on the market at a price of 500,000 dollars a copy to stop anybody buying it. That shows the lengths to which we have gone. Having just browsed through the book in your Lordships' Library, I feel that, even having regard to the rather exceptional circumstances, the book was slightly overpriced.
  On the other hand, American copyright owners can obtain complete protection

  33
  here, and for longer than they can enjoy at home, simply by publishing the work in a Berne Convention country like Canada at the same time as they publish in America. Your Lordships will probably remember the trouble which Mr. D'Oyley Carte and Gilbert and Sullivan had over pirated versions of their H.M.S. Pinafore being performed in America at the same time as their own versions; and I have been told that the somewhat unflattering picture of America given by Charles Dickens in Martin Chuzzlewit was largely due to the trouble he had in America over the copyright of his works. It is fair to say that Americans have always had a slightly guilty conscience and have tried to put the matter right, but now the problem has been resolved in an unexpected way, by the U N.E.S.C.O. Convention. That Convention, convened in September, 1952, under the auspices of U.N.E.S.C.O., produced the Universal Copyright Convention, which has been signed by thirty-six States, including Great Britain and the United States of America. I gather that several other States have also now signed, and that more may do so.
  The provisions of this Convention differ from the Berne Convention to which I have been referring in two main ways. First, in order to allow as many countries as possible to become members, the minimum term of protection conferred is less than that provided in the Berne Convention. Secondly, published works qualify for protection according to the nationality of the author as well as the place of first publication. In that respect, the Convention is less stringent in its provisions than the Berne requirements. This is very important for this country's interests, because the U.N.E.S.C.O. Convention provides that any contracting State which under its domestic laws requires, as a condition of copyright, compliance with formalities, such as registration or manufacture or publication in that contracting State, shall regard these requirements as satisfied in respect of works of other Convention countries if at a time of first publication all copies of a work bear the symbol of a letter C in a circle plus the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of fist publication, placed so as to give reasonable notice of a claim of copyright. Those are simple terms which have another great advantage. They get over
  34
  the difficulty, which those who share my views will also feel, of the publisher who does not give the date of his book inside the first cover—an infernal nuisance. I would consign such a publisher to the Mikado's list of people who "never will be missed," alongside those who publish maps without scales, or who sell tinned sardines without a key or bottled beer without an opener. By this sidewind we get over that difficulty.
  The United States of America has made the necessary legal amendments and ratified the Convention. The Convention is not yet fully effective, since not all the ratifications have so far been deposited. Further ratifications are, however, expected, and the Convention will no doubt become fully effective before long, possibly before our ratification. The benefits of the Convention will be enjoyed in the United States of America only by authors and publishers whose countries ratify the Convention. This Convention has, naturally, been well received in this country. It is interesting to note that, by an international Convention, we have now resolved a difficulty which America and ourselves had been unable to resolve unilaterally. The Convention will be of great advantage to our authors and publishers, and also to the export trade in books, if the copyright for British works can be obtained in the United States of America by the carrying out of these simple formalities. Dollar revenue thus earned will not stop at the value of the books sold, because copyright protection secures for the owner payment in respect of dramatic and film rights also. Only minor and technical amendments in our Law will be necessary, and I am sure that noble Lords will approve of this Clause.
  I must confess that Clause 2 is slightly controversial. It is concerned with television, a subject which, like Ireland, cannot be discussed without controversy raising its head. This clause arises not from any international agreement but from scientific advances since the Act of 1911 which still covers the law of this and kindred subjects. In 1911, television was unheard of; radio, the cinema and recording were in their infancy; and the development still continues to-day. We have recently seen the development of colour television and the invention of a new camera which takes a film and televises simultaneously. It is obvious that

  35
  it would be difficult to deal with these advances under an Act passed in 1911.
  Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the grant of a right to the B.B.C. and to the Independent Television Authority to control the public performance of television programmes. It will have little or no effect on the private viewer. If noble Lords ask me the meaning here of the word "public," I can only say that the question has been threshed out many times in the courts with regard to other forms of copyright performance and is now well understood. There has been an increasing demand for something along these lines by sportsmen, sports promoters and the public. Noble Lords will be aware of the differences of opinion which have continued for some time past between Mrs. Topham and the B.B.C. over the Grand National. The sporting world and broadcasters will face a near-deadlock if we do not have this Bill, or something like it. Sport has contributed as much as anything to the popularity and success of television. Many people feel that there is not yet enough sport shown upon television. If, on the other hand, television gives as much sport as the public would like, most promoters may end in Queer Street. Conversely, it would be a disaster if the progress of television to which we all look forward were to result in the death knell of British sport. This Bill serves to break that vicious circle. That point may be vividly brought home to noble Lords by the remarks made as recently as Friday last, and reported in The Times of Saturday last, by the Chairman of Epsom Grand Stand Association, Mr. Van Moppes. He said point-blank that, without this Bill, televising of the Derby will not be possible. That was his view. The reasons are straightforward. There is the effect on the "gate," not only on the sport concerned but on other sports going on at the same time. Some noble Lords may have seen England's not particularly brilliant victory over Scotland at Twickenham in the Calcutta Cup—
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Withdraw! It was a resounding victory.
  LORD MANCROFT: Some noble Lords may have seen this apparently questionable match at Twickenham on Saturday. I had the great good fortune to watch a different match. Combining business with pleasure, I saw the Welsh
  36
  Schoolboys have a fine battle and win 6–0 against the English Schoolboys at Cardiff Arms Park—I gather that it was a much better game. Half the stands at our end of the arena were empty. A friend suggested that the possible reason was that some people had stayed at home, disloyal to the Welsh Schoolboys, to watch the television of the Calcutta Cup match at Twickenham. That sort of thing will continue and will be reflected in sport all over the country, affecting all sporting receipts as the televising of sport becomes—as we hope it will—more common. This serves only to emphasise the power of television and its enormous, frightening possibilities as a medium of instruction, propaganda and entertainment. Anybody who has tried to make a political speech in the country on a Friday evening, when the stars of politics—the demi-gods whom the B.B.C. promote from the Back Benches to the front page in In the News—scintillate, will know that it is impossible to get an audience. In the forthcoming Election we shall have to face the fact that Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Lady Barnett are better known than half the Cabinet and all the Opposition put together.
  The Copyright Committee have dealt with the flatter at length in Paragraph 158 and onwards of their Report. The Committee were at first urged to recommend granting to a promoter a right to control public performance, either live or by recordings or films, or by any other new mediums, of his performances or sporting spectacles, and the right to control broadcasts of these performances or spectacles, whether recorded or live. The Committee went into this matter very carefully, and in the end they considered it to be an undue extension of the conception of copyright, which is basically a protection of works, to protect the Lincolnshire (which, I understand, "Minstrel" is going to win) or, say, the Highland Games. Performers of dramatic or musical works—I must point this out for fear of misunderstanding—are already protected by the Dramatic and Musical Performers' Protection Act, 1925, from the clandestine recording of performances. The Committee felt it was logical that the protection thus mooted—the protection I have been discussing—for sports promoters ought to extend to something like, say, the cart-horse parade in Regent's Park or the Lord Mayor's Show.

  37
  Your Lordships will see at once, however, that there is an obvious physical difficulty in carrying that out, quite apart from the difficulties of definition. Nevertheless, the Committee felt that the public should be enabled through television to enjoy as fully as possible sporting events. I think that is a view which is generally shared, although at the moment, for reasons which I have tried to explain, they cannot fully enjoy all those events. At the same time, the Committee felt that there was no reason why third parties, such as cinemas and licensed premises, should be able, without authorisation, and without having made any financial contribution to the particular programme, to give public showings of such events for gain. This has become an increasingly common practice in hotels and public houses. Your Lordships will also remember that an experiment was made a little while ago of televising in cinemas in the principal cites throughout the country the Germany v. United Kingdom soccer match. This sort of thing is clearly going to increase. But one must put forward the view that, if these television programmes are shown in public in places such as those which I have mentioned, it undoubtedly increases their amenities. In the same way that public places have to pay a small fee for relaying sound programmes given in public, it is suggested that it is not unjust that they should also contribute a little towards the cost of the arrangement of these programmes.
  The Committee have therefore proposed a new right in the nature of a performing right to be given to broadcasting authorities in all their television programmes. The new right will not be a substitute for existing rights, such as authors' rights, but will co-exist with them. This will enable the B.B.C. or I.T.A. to control, by agreement set out in terms of a licence made under the Bill, and make a charge for a public showing of such things as the television broadcast of a Cup Final or Wimbledon.
  This right is not confined to sport—I mention sport in particular because it is naturally the first thing that springs to mind. Money thus collected would provide resources out of which payments would be made by the B.B.C. and I.T.A. to sports promoters for permission to set up cameras on their premises and televise events. I need not emphasise the financial
  38
  difficulties in which some branches of sport now find themselves. The organising bodies of certain sports, indeed the majority, have had it in mind that they will be able, by these means, to assist financially some of the weaker brethren in their organisations. In the past, promoters disliked television of their events owing to the lack of recompense for loss of gate money. Clause 2 of the Bill tackles this problem. Promoters retain the right to allow or refuse would-be broadcasters to erect their cameras on their premises. Terms of permission to erect cameras are now a matter of bargaining between promoter and broadcaster. The promoter, of course, remains a free agent. He can refuse showing in a particular area as part of the licence either at home or in public.
  The Bill, in providing for this new television right, does not lay down how various interests should arrange their affairs but enables them to do so to the advantage of all concerned. The B.B.C. and I.T.A., on whom the new right is conferred by the Bill, will be able to control and make a charge for public showing of their programmes. The charges, of course, will vary with the nature of the pubic. The charge for the showing of a performance in a big cinema will clearly differ from the charge for showing, say, to the women's institute in a village. The B.B.C. and I.T.A. will thus be in a better financial position when bargaining for the right to show sporting events. I.T.A., for simplicity's sake in this case, is really acting as a sort of quasi-trustee for the programme contractors. That, I understand, will be an acceptable arrangement. It does not affect home users, who will greatly benefit at no extra cost. It is only public performances that are to be controlled, so far as public showing of television programmes is concerned. The anxiety of promoters and others who provide non-copyright material for television programmes can be set at rest when they know that there is clear control over the use of television programmes and substantial sanctions for the enforcement of this exhibiting right.
  My Lords, that explains, broadly, what the Bill sets out to do and the reasons for its introduction. I have deliberately refrained from going into all the details of how the various provisions will be administered. As your Lordships will

  39
  see, the bulk of the copyright recommendations of the Committee to which I have referred remain untouched. I want to emphasise again that the provisions which are included in the Bill are based on the recommendations of the Committee. The most important chance not dealt with is that to establish a performing rights tribunal, with power to adjudicate in any dispute between the fee-collecting societies which control the rights of composers and gramophone record makers, on the one hand, and music users on the other.
  For some time, music users, including bodies like women's institutes, have pressed for such a tribunal. And the collecting societies themselves would welcome it. But the Government, having thought over this matter very carefully, have come to the conclusion that this Bill is an inappropriate place in which to provide for this tribunal, because a tribunal is not immediately necessary for either of the two limited objects of the Bill. The main object of a tribunal would be to control other rights not dealt with in this Bill at all, but which will be dealt with in the later Bill. Also, I must point out that, if it were set up, a tribunal would still not be able to force an unwilling racecourse proprietor to accept television cameras on his course, nor would it compel the B.B.C. or I.T.A. to pay some fee that was unacceptable to them.
  I must emphasise, in conclusion, that this Bill is a limited measure, an interim measure: it has limited objectives. We have not time at the moment for a re-codification of the whole of the law of copyright. The major changes, major technical and artistic changes, which have occurred since 1911 would involve an equally major job of recodification. But Her Majesty's Government accept, with some minor modifications, the Report of the Copyright Committee; and a comprehensive Bill based on its other and remaining recommendations is now being drafted. This is an interim measure which is designed to fill a much-felt want, and a want upon which both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., as well as the viewing-world in general, have expressed a demand. I hope that the Bill will meet with the approval of your Lordships. It will, clearly, be to the public
  40
  benefit. It deals with matters upon which noble Lords opposite have frequently asked questions. I hope that it will fulfil their hopes. With those words, I beg to recommend the Bill to your Lordships and to move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  4.30 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so with respect, I think it would have been better, for the proper appreciation of this Bill, if the noble Lord had gone into a few more facts and a little fewer personal reminiscences. As the noble Lord has said, this is a very serious matter. Therefore I intend, with your Lordships' permission, to fill in some of the blanks which the noble Lord has evidently not thought it worth while to fill in for your Lordships, so that you may have a better appreciation of the fundamental changes which the Bill seeks to bring about. I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, the Postmaster General, is going to wind up this debate, because, if he will permit me to say so, upon this thorny question of television he has always shown himself to be very alive to the feelings of your Lordships and ever ready to give us all the information within his power. His handling of the Television Act, 1954, commended itself to all noble Lords.
  This Bill is not politically controversial, but anybody who thinks it is not controversial in other regards is deluding himself. I intend to tell the House what noble Lords on this side, and I expect noble Lords on the other side who have made themselves acquainted with the Bill, think about it. I do not intend to waste your Lordships' time by dealing lengthily with Clause 1, which amends the Copyright Act, 1911, to enable the Government to ratify the Brussels Convention of 1948 and the Universal Copyright Convention of 1952. It is as well for your Lordships to appreciate that the Universal Copyright Convention was designed as a bridge between two parts of the world which had different conceptions of copyright—the countries who are members of the Berne Union, from which the international copyright law stems, and the United States of America, the outstanding exception.

  41
  Copyright in this country has been based on a conception fundamentally different from that of America. Copyright here is regarded as a natural property right of the author or composer: in America it is a right conferred upon the author with the consent of the State. That is a vitally different thing. In the same way our patent law has been built up on the fundamental principle that the original author, composer or inventor has a monopoly right to protect his interests against piracy and copying. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, rightly said, it was because of this different conception that English books in America were not copyright unless they were printed and bound in America. The present Bill enables this difficulty to be got over. The only thing that surprises me is that the United Kingdom Government have been so laggard in ratifying the Universal Convention. Its virtues were apparent. The Copyright Committee of 1952 pressed the Government to do it. On the principle of better late than never, I suppose this is now being done. I want your Lordships to bear clearly in mind this fundamental right of the author or composer to have a monopoly in his work.
  We now come to Clause 2. The Bill has only two clauses: if the first is non-controversial, the second is charged with controversy. I think the noble Lord would have been fairer to your Lordships—I say this with no ill will—if he had pointed out that it was with very great reluctance that the Copyright Committee "advised that there should be an exhibiting right." Either through faulty draftsmanship or through one of those freaks of the law which happen in this country, there crept into the 1911 Act by a side wind a performing right in gramophone records which has caused endless trouble. I recall to the noble Earl the interesting debate we had in your Lordships' House on this matter in 1953. For they first time there was brought into copyright law a performing right, by which the gramophone record manufacturer not only has a copyright in the artistic performance on the record but also the power of controlling the performance of that record—something that was never envisaged by Parliament and never contemplated by Parliament, something that has been acting to the detriment of authors and composers ever since, because it has brought into the musical world a veto which is
  42
  entirely against their interests. This is the right which the Government now propose to establish in this Bill, not by a side wind as it came into the 1911 Act, but with the full force of the law. Let me say that I am not going to question here and now whether or not it is wise for this to be done. We live in a different world from that of 1911. But I hold strongly the view that we should not do this until your Lordships are full apprised of and alerted to precisely what we are doing. The consequences can be serious.
  Clause 2 of the Bill lays down that there shall be a new exhibiting right and sets up two quasi-monopolies. Since the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and I, had that interesting debate on January 21, 1953, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge. I know I shall carry the noble Earl with me, because I am going to use almost the same words which he used on that occasion. The idea of giving the British Broadcasting Corporation an exhibiting right in the public exhibition of television was advanced wholly and solely for the purpose of making it possible for the B.B.C. to control the public exhibition of television by issuing licences and collecting fees, so that they had a greater income to enable them to compensate sporting promoters for allowing the B.B.C. to televise their events. But since that date we have had the Television Act, 1954.
  Before I come to that, so that your Lordships and the public at large can be fully alerted to what this really means, I want to deal with the position of the individual composer and author and the right that is inherent in the Copyright Act, 1911. In paragraph 76 of their Report the Copyright Committee say:
  "In the preceding Parts of our Report we have dealt with questions arising out of copyright in printed books and music and manuscripts. These all relate to what we regard as the fundamental rights of the originator of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which are granted by, and included in, Section 1 of the Copyright Act, 1911. These fundamental rights of the originator include the following:

  (a) the right to produce or reproduce an original work in any material form;

  (b) the right to perform the work in public;

  (c) the right to translate it;

  (d) the right to convert a dramatic work into a non-dramatic work or a non-dramatic work into a dramatic work; and finally,

  43

  (e) the right to make any record, perforated roll or cinematograph film from the literary, dramatic or musical work."

  They set this out again in paragraph 79; and in paragraph 115, with regard to broadcasting, they say:
  "In discussing the questions relating to copyright in a broadcast (whether sound or television) we wish again to state that, as in the case of gramophone records … we regard as fundamental the right of an author, composer or artist to authorise the use of copyright material for broadcasting purposes."
  They go on at the end of that paragraph to say:
  "We therefore recommend that it should be made abundantly clear that a copyright owner has the sole right to authorise any broadcasting organisation to make use of his work over their system and to communicate that work to the public, irrespective of whether or not some recipient of the programme emitted is giving a performance of the programme in public."
  There is one last passage to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention, and it is in paragraph 181, where they say:
  "To begin with, we wish to make it quite clear that we regard the rights we recommend for broadcast programmes or gramophone records as subsidiary to the primary right of the composer or author of a copyright work reproduced by these technical means, and that performing rights in programmes or records should be without prejudice to that primary right."
  I do not believe that the Government have the slightest intention of violating those principles, because that would go against the whole conception of the copyright law of this country, which has served the country and its artistic people so well. Therefore, I trust they will not have the slightest objection if on the Committee stage we seek to insert in this Bill safe-guards which make that abundantly clear. That is what we shall attempt to do.
  I come now to the larger issue, and I want to ask the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, how this is going to work. I have followed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, with meticulous care, and I know no more now than when he started. I want to take the noble Earl through the process. Again, let me repeat that the sole object of this Bill at its first inception was to provide the British Broadcasting Corporation with sufficient funds to allow them to pay the high and increasing prices for televising sporting events, without which television
  44
  would not be worth twopence a year. That is the only type of programme that is going to have a major appeal for public exhibition. Public exhibition can range from a Rank cinema circuit and the Savoy Hotel right down to a little back-street boarding house in Scarborough. The only way the fees are to be collected is by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority turning themselves into collecting agencies. They will then collect fees on a scale to be set out by somebody, I know not whom, at a rate, I know not what; and I suppose it will range from public television in West End cinemas again to the humble boarding house that lets the top front bed-sitting-room—"Come to 'The Laurels,' Arcadia Grove, Scarborough; television and other modern conveniences."
  I want to know who is going to issue the licences; who is going to set the tariff; who is going to settle disputes whether they should have a licence by right—as in the case of charitable institutions, workers' hostels, women's institutes and so on—and how many licences they will have to obtain. So far as I can see—I may be wrong, and, if I am, I know the noble Earl will be generous enough to concede that it is only because I have had no opportunity of acquainting myself with the facts—if I am the owner of an hotel or boarding house and I wish to offer television as one of the amenities to my guests, I must purchase from the Postmaster General a television licence. I then have to get a public exhibiting licence, either from the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., or both. I must also have a licence from the Performing Right Society, because I shall be broadcasting to the public copyright music. I shall also have to obtain a licence from the Phonographic Performance Limited, in case during one of the television transmissions they happen to be using records which are subject to one of their licences.
  LORD MANCROFT: They will probably have that at all events.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No—forgive me; they have not. That is where the noble Lord makes his first fundamental mistake.
  LORD MANCROFT: They have an ordinary wireless set.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord should study his Bill. There is no embargo on any sound emission unless it comes from a television set at the same time as the picture. Sound broadcasting is not brought within the compass of this Bill. I should like the Postmaster General to tell me why it is not. If I have a little back room in the back streets of Scarborough, I have to obtain four licences. Suppose I get my excise licence from the Postmaster General, my licence from the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., and my licence from the Performing Right Society, but am not lucky enough to get one from Phonographic Performance Limited. Immediately I ask my guests to listen to a public television performance of a gramophone record I am, to use the vernacular, "for it." That is how I see it. I do not think that makes common sense, but it may be—and allow me to give the noble Earl the point—the only way to do it, because I appreciate the difficulties. I will put forward later the remedy that I would propose.
  I think it is of vital importance that not only your Lordships but also the British public should know the facts. During the passage of the Television Act, 1954, the noble Earl made the concession to your Lordships' House—I think my noble and learned leader was the one who pressed him so hard upon this point—that no exclusive arrangements should be made for the broadcasting of national sporting events. That appears in Section 7 of the 1954 Act. What happens? The B.B.C. and the I.T.A. (why the I.T.A. I do not know; I suppose that for convenience's sake they are going to be the copyright holders, though I should have thought it would be the programme contractors) march hand in hand, like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. If they want to broadcast either the Derby or the Cup Final they go to the responsible authorities—and it may be, if the gentleman who made that much-publicised statement the other day is concerned, that their ideas of price will have to be a little bit greater than they are at the present time. As the noble Lord has said—and this is quite implicit—if the authorities do not want their sporting event televised, there is no power in this country which can force them to permit it. That we recognise straight away. Money is supposed to be the key to the
  46
  problem—it runs right through this Report.
  Suppose that the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. go hand in hand to the authority of the sporting event, whether it be the Cup Final, Wimbledon, the Rugby Union, the Derby or the Grand National, and are told, "Yes you may televise this event, and our price is £10,000." I can imagine the I.T.A. saying, "We do not mind £10,000, because we are going to charge about £1,000 a minute for advertising." The B.B.C., however, may say, "We are very sorry but we cannot afford £10,000; £1,000 is about all we can go to." What happens then? Section 7 of the 1954 Act states that there cannot be any exclusive arrangement, so nothing happens at all. Does the prize go to the biggest bargainer? Surely not, according to the Act of 1954. So what happens? We do not have the television of the Cup Final, or whatever it may be.
  What about the hundreds of thousands of pounds of public exhibition fees which the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. will already have collected? Surely it will not be said that every boarding house, private hotel or village hall shall pay an exhibiting fee every time an event is shown. Surely it will be done over twelve months. If it is impossible to make terms with the promoters, are the holders of these public exhibiting licences to be given their money back? As the Copy-right Committee's Report quite plainly sets out, Mr. Jack Solomons may say, "I am promoting a world title fight at the Dome, Brighton. I will allow the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. to televise this, but I shall have in my contract an embargo that it is not to be shown on the screens of television within fifty miles from Brighton, because that would interfere with my 'gate'." That is quite a logical thing. What is going to happen to those within fifty miles of Brighton who have paid for their yearly public exhibiting licence? There are answers which I suggest the British public have got to be told, because if not—and I do not accuse any noble Lord on the Government Front Bench of this—it will be obtaining money under false pretences
  LORD MANCROFT: Oh, no.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says "Oh, no," but you are saying that these people must pay a fee, which may run from £1

  47
  to £1,000, to show television programmes to the public and then you cannot provide them. What are you going to do? All these things are, I suggest, germane. There is going to be much heartburning over this, not only about who shall have a licence, but about the terms upon which the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. can give it. What we shall want to do on the Comittee stage is to insert into this Bill provision for the appointment of a tribunal. It is useless for the noble Lord to say that the time is not opportune. This Bill must come into effect—I appreciate the urgency of the matter—on October 1 of this year. There are 4 million television sets in operation, and every day more and more sets are going into "pubs," clubs, boarding houses and hotels.
  There may be an argument—I am not going to advance it—why a hotel should not have to pay a licence fee for providing its guests with this amenity, but there may be a still greater case for having some independent tribunal to say why they shall be withheld from having a licence of a certain kind. I want to put this point to the noble Earl the Postmaster General. Take the trouble that has occurred with Phonographic Performance Limited and the Musicians' Union, who would not allow gramophone records to be played in any hall or establishment in this country where a live musician could operate. They can put that embargo upon the playing of records on television—the background music of many television programmes is supplied by gramophone records. They will say that no hotel may allow its guests to pirouette round the drawing room floor to the music of Victor Sylvester and his band or something like that, because it is a mechanical contrivance and they must have a band there to play. That is precisely what they have done in respect of gramophone records.
  I have tried to state a case, not to say that this Bill is not necessary, not to suggest to the noble Lord who has introduced it to-day or the noble Earl who has the biggest share in it, that it is not the right thing to do, but to show that it would be against the public interest for a Government to set up two monopolies having power to interfere with the hotel and entertainment business of this country without there being set up some tribunal, presided over by an eminent legal authority, not to decide whether the fee
  48
  paid to the sports promoter is correct but to act in connection with all those incidental things that happen in the life of a community and have happened regarding the Performing Right Society and its method of issuing licences. Also, there is the individual performer who has to be looked after.
  As I read this Bill, once Arthur Askey, for instance, has given a television performance of his act, the copyright in that act vests for twenty-five years with either the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. You may say: "Of course, if Arthur Askey is not a better business man than to take cognisance of that when he fixed his contract. …" That may be right, but what about the thousand and one honest troupers who give such good entertainment in some of these television programmes? What is their bargaining power? Again, there should be some appeal about the terms upon which a thing like that is enforced.
  I beg your Lordships' pardon; I have been too long, but I thought it only right that this case should be stated. We on this side of the House will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill but I give the noble Earl notice now that on the Committee and subsequent stages we shall seek to make it abundantly clear that there is nothing in these exhibiting rights which in any way infringes the fundamental right of the author and the composer, and that there shall be set up a tribunal as recommended by the Copyright Committee. The Copyright Committee recommended taking this course "with some reluctance." If your Lordships will take the trouble to look through the Report, you will find it mentioned in one of these paragraphs—I have not the exact reference at the moment. It was because the Committee were fully conscious of the harmful public effect that the misuse of the monopoly right could have that they said that there was only one way of safeguarding the public interest in this matter, and that was to have an independent legal tribunal, in exactly the same way as there is a patents court to settle appropriate cases.
  5.5 p.m.
  VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, especially Clause 1, which will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Brussels and Geneva Conventions. I must confess that I am

  49
  not quite so happy about some facets of Clause 2. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, the Copyright Committee contemplated giving the new television exhibiting right only "with some reluctance." If my understanding of the Report is correct, it was principally to enable the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to control the public exhibition of sporting events on television. Am I perhaps reading too much between the lines if I say that it seems to me that there is an underlying connotation of large screen projection—possibly in cinemas, probably closed circuit—for which admission would be charged? I am sure that no one could object very strenuously to that.
  What I am thinking of is the casual switching on of a television set in the saloon bar of "the local" on the corner, or by the holiday-maker by the seaside on a rainy day—and unfortunately, there are some rainy days from time to time—who decides to switch on the set in the front parlour of "Sea View." The Copyright Committee reported in 1952. Since that time there has been a tremendous increase in the number of television sets. I am informed that there are over 4 million such sets licensed in this country. I think there will be few people, particularly in a year or two but even now, who will not, assuming that they enjoy television, either have a set themselves or at least be viewing with a member of their family or a friend. Therefore I submit to your Lordships that there could be little question of people going to a hotel or restaurant solely for the purpose of viewing a particular television programme.
  5.8 p.m.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition for saying that I may speak before he does. I felt that if I spoke after he did there might be nothing left to say. I want to intervene for only a couple of minutes, to support, first, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and, secondly, my noble friend, Lord Furness, behind me. As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, I thought before he spoke (and he has convinced me that I was right) that your Lordships were being asked to pass this Bill without any detailed information whatsoever of how it will work. It is on the details that this Bill will either stand or fall. I hope my noble friend the Postmaster General will
  50
  now give us some details. I can assure him that, if we do not get the details before the Committee stage, he will be very hard pressed on that stage of the Bill. The only other aspect with which I want to deal is the question of hotels. My noble friend Lord Mancroft mentioned that people poured into the hotels; that it was an amenity and an attraction if television were provided, and that the hotels made a lot of money by it.
  LORD MANCROFT: No—that they do not.
  LORD DERWENT: I am sorry if I misunderstood him, but I understood him to say that they drew people by having television and therefore made money by it. That may be the case, to some extent, but the modern-minded hotelier is gradually having television, not only in the lounge but in the bedrooms of his hotel. I hope the noble Earl when he comes to speak—and he knows a great deal about this subject—will give his views on the question of the tourist trade. I believe that in this very competitive trade tourists will, in a very short space of time, expect as a natural amenity television to be shown in one room or more rooms and, in the larger hotels, probably in every bedroom. I feel quite certain that the Americans will expect that. Of course, we do not know what the burdens will be, as we have not been told, but I think we should beware of putting burdens on hotels which will induce them not to provide the amenities that the tourist, particularly the foreign tourist, expects.
  There is one other aspect about which I am worried. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned the question of the small boarding house in a back street of Scarborough. I have probably spoken about this matter before. In my part of the world, in Yorkshire, we have a number of resorts, such as Scarborough, Filey, Bridlington, Whitby, and so on, which, unlike the South Coast resorts, have only one, fairly short, season. When that season is over, most of the big hotels close, opening only for conferences and not for the general public. Some of them remain shut throughout the winter. But many of the smaller hotels, which one might term "almost boarding house—almost hotel," stay open throughout the winter. They do it by providing homes for people,

  51
  many of whom have no other homes, for eight or nine months of the year at reduced fees. Those reduced fees pay the bare running expenses—and they are the bare running expenses in the non-holiday season. In the three or four months of the holiday season, up go the prices and, in most cases, the people who live in these smaller hotels go away to take their holidays, staying with friends. The profit of the business is made in those three or four months. But the margin of profit, if any, in the winter months (and in most cases there is none) is so small that additional costs of any seriousness would force these small hotels to close in the winter and the people who make their homes there would have to leave.
  It seems to me rather shocking that throughout the year I can, if I so wish, sit in my own home and watch the televising of sports programmes without paying anything more than my £3, while either the people who, for eight or nine months of the year, live in a small hotel will, if the fees for this additional showing are fairly high, have the fees (which in many cases they will not be able to afford) passed on to them, or, as is more likely, in the winter the hotel will not provide the amenity of television. I hope the Postmaster General will reconsider this question. The small hotels are not the same as the Metropole at Brighton or the Dorchester in London. I know it is difficult to make a distinction, but in my view hotels should provide the amenities that people away from home would find in their own homes, and I feel that they should not be charged for providing those amenities.
  5.14 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I do not want to make a controversial or Party speech on this matter, for reasons which I will indicate in a moment, but I agree with what the last speaker said. I believe that on all sides of this House this Bill will be carefully scrutinised, and that unless we get some concessions we shall certainly fight it vigorously on the Committee stage. My own view about copyright has long been that the law on the subject has got altogether out of hand. The original conception of an original work, be it music, writing or what you will, and the protection which we
  52
  gave to it, is wholly good—indeed, in two respects I am not sure that I should have come to the conclusion that the existing protection needed to be extended. I think it has worked very well, and I do not know why it is thought that it should be extended. There was a power of compulsory licence during part of the lifetime of the copyright, and there was power to go to the Privy Council—a power which, so far as I know, has never been exercised; but the mere fact that the power was there has, to my certain knowledge, been of value in inducing people to be reasonable in making agreements. However, for some reason, which is quite obscure to me, those two alterations are now to be made. If it is thought wise, I do not raise controversy about that, although I should have left things as they were.
  But where I think copyright has got out of hand altogether is in such respects as this: it was one thing to protect an original work; it was another thing to protect a mere mechanical device such as a gramophone record. I thought it was a grave mistake that, in the case of a gramophone record of some piece of music, taken of course with the consent of the owner of the copyright in that music, the people who deal with the record, which they sell in the market, should be able to exact additional fees if that record is used for anything which can be called a public showing. For instance, if I were to have in my home a dozen young persons and were to give a dance, and I thereupon proceeded to turn on my gramophone, using my records which I have bought, I should be guilty of a breach of copyright. The same thing applies to meetings of the women's institute in one's own village, or other gatherings of that sort. I think it is hard to say that that should be the law and that that, in some way or other, is hitched up to copyright, which is in its essence the protection of an original work of art. As I have said on previous occasions, I think we have gone wrong in that respect.
  Equally, with regard to paintings, I think that when a man buys a painting it ought to be understood that he buys the copyright in that painting. I told your Lordships on a previous occasion about our experience at the Tate Gallery, when we reproduced in the form of Christmas

  53
  cards some of the pictures in the Gallery (which undoubtedly were ours), so that people who came to the Gallery might carry away either a catalogue or coloured cards or something of the sort. We discovered that we were breaking the copyright law, and when the descendants of the artists from whom we had bought the pictures claimed fees, we were told that we should have to pay. I think that is wrong, and I think the matter ought to be cleared up. I am sorry that there is not to be undertaken at the present time such a general revision of the Copyright Act as I think is called for.
  Now, my Lords, I come to consider this question about which I have got these feelings, which I expect nearly all your Lordships share. First of all, I think that by far the best thing about television is the sporting event. I think nearly all of us like this form of viewing better than anything else—indeed, if it were not for this, I do not think I should trouble to have a television set. I quite realise the danger that is felt—though I believe it is greatly exaggerated—by the people who promote these sporting events, that their "gates" may be affected and they may lose money, and so on and so forth, if the events are televised. Everybody else believes that to be exaggerated. I give an illustration of which I know something, the somewhat analogous case of concerts on sound radio. The number of people who go to hear good music in this country has enormously increased because, by listening to the radio, they have become accustomed to good music, and have grown to like it. The potential audience is greatly increased, which is all to the good.
  I should conjecture the same in regard to sporting events, and that people may well become interested in Rugby football by reason of the fact that they have seen such excellent games as we saw in the English-Scottish match last Saturday—or in the first half, at any rate. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, I think his illustration of empty seats at the schoolboys' match at Cardiff was a very poor one. We certainly do not need a Minister of Sport in this country, although there might be something to be said for a Sports Council, rather on the lines of the Arts Council, operating, possibly, with some grant from the Government, which could look into
  54
  such matters as these. That is a subject which we might properly consider on another occasion.
  I am in favour of the people who provide sports. I believe they are doing splendid work. I am in favour of sports being shown also on television. How to combine those two in a workable way is the attempt of this Bill. We have not had pointed out to us how fundamentally this Bill is at variance with the Report of the Copyright Committee. I have had representations from the hotel industry, the Music Users' Federation and the Performing Right Society who have come to me because I have the great honour of being president of the British Holiday and Travel Association, of which the hotel industry in this country is a constituent branch. After what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has just said I am bound to tell noble Lords that it is essential to consider this fact. Our flow of visitors depends upon the hotels and the quality of the entertainment and comfort that they are given. Do not forget that this tourist industry has now become our most important industry, bringing in more dollars than any other. These facilities must be provided in hotels.
  From letters which I have received it appears that hotels are concerned at being left to deal with these people, who can exact just whatever fees they like. The Government have done away with the tribunal and that creates a very serious situation. The Music Users' Federation say:
  "The amount of the additional licence fee will be one which the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. can arbitrarily determine, and against which there is no appeal machinery whatever."
  The British Hotels and Restaurant Association say:
  "The Association observes that the Copyright Committee only contemplated giving this new right 'with some reluctance.' and largely to enable the broadcasting authority to control the public exhibition of televised sporting events. The Bill, as now drafted, would give much wider powers to the broadcasting authority, as it would enable it to control the exhibition of Any televised programmes 'in public,' for which it could exact any fee it chose,"
  How can it do that? To provide normal amenities a hotel buys its wireless set and is accustomed to use it for the benefit of these guests. When some sporting event comes on television, is the hotelier to close down? If he does not shut off his receiver

  55
  there is no tribunal to fix what is a fair fee. He can be bled white, and no appeal is possible to any tribunal. Such an arrangement cannot be worked without a tribunal.
  I do not pretend to be an expert on copyright but in my days at the Bar I was fortunate enough to be entrusted by the Performing Right Society with some of their difficult problems. These are the original artists, the people who produce the music. They press for a tribunal. They are very ready and anxious to submit their fees to a tribunal. They say:
  "… the matter may well arise in the discussion of this present Bill, and we would like you to know that, far from being reluctant to submit our tariffs to the arbitration of an official Tribunal, we are only too anxious to see it established at the earliest possible moment, and it is merely out of a desire to co-operate with our licensees that we have temporarily ceased pressing for it."
  If the people who write the music are willing to submit their fees to a tribunal to determine what is a reasonable fee, surely it is only fair that these people (who have not themselves produced an original work but have merely recorded it on some contrivance) should submit their fees to some tribunal.
  I do not think this House would allow the Bill to go through in this form, with no safeguard. I humbly suggest to the noble Earl the Postmaster General that between this and the next stage of the Bill he must think again. I can quite understand why he wants to do this; but if he is to adopt this wholly new system, and give this new and considerable extension of copyright, he must surely take steps to see that it is not abused. The more serious fact of licences and present difficulties indicate that the appointment of a tribunal is the only possible course. I very much hope that, though we shall give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, the noble Earl will, when we come (not hurriedly I hope) to the Committee stage, have thought over this matter again. I hope he will come in a generous and giving mood, prepared to consider as an essential element of this system the establishment of some tribunal to see that people who otherwise might be exploited are not exploited.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I rise with considerable reluctance to say a word for a noble Lord who has had to
  56
  go and has asked me to speak for him. Before doing so, may I recall to the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken, and who talked of the difficulty of the gramophone record played in his house, the device adopted by Mr. Pélissier when we were both young? He wanted to play the "Merry Widow" waltz in his theatre. He composed a note which he inserted in the middle of the waltz, and sometimes with pride he played this alone. Thus he was able to play the "Merry Widow" waltz with his note as often as he pleased without any infringement of copyright. The case to which I have to reply in a very few words is that of the British Film Industry, which for some time has been investigating the possibility of using television not for the purpose of broadcasting to home viewers but as a means of giving cinema-goers the opportunity of seeing on a large screen, as part of the ordinary cinema performance, television items produced by the film industry itself. Experiments are going on, but it will probably be some years before the industry's plans will cover the whole of the country. They feel, however, that it would only be right that the Government should be asked to extend the scope of the Bill to give copyright protection to programmes to be transmitted by television for paying audiences. I believe that was contemplated by the Government in their statement of policy in 1952.
  5.31 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I do not think the Government should be either surprised or regretful at the reception which has been given to the Bill. We know that the subject with which it deals is an extremely difficult one, and it is natural that your Lordships should be extremely concerned about it. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was a little unfair to Lord Mancroft, who, it seemed to me, put the general problem before us extremely well. Let me just say this, because I think it is the answer to a great deal that has been said to-day. Let us remember that it is for the Government to give certain rights to certain bodies, rights which they can operate, such as copyright which has been granted in the past; but it was not the Government that set up the whole machinery of the Performing Right Society. It is for this reason we now

  57
  propose to give the rights, but not to evolve the machinery for collection, and so on. I think that that is a very brief answer to a great number of the questions that have been put in the course of the debate.
  One overwhelming point which stands out in my mind as a result of this discussion is that the Government's decision to attempt to isolate certain immediate problems that had to be dealt with on an urgent basis, whilst promising to your Lordships a comprehensive Bill on the future, has been justified, over and over again. Most of the difficulties that have been brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the question, for instance, of the recording of sound—he spoke of that at some length on a previous occasion and he has dealt with it also to-day with great feeling—are of long standing. That illustrates the supreme difficulty of this question. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, went almost further than did Lord Lucas of Chilworth. He said that he thought the subject of coypright has got quite out of hand.
  EARL JOWITT: Yes, I do think so.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I agree with the noble and learned Earl about the immense difficulties. Her Majesty's Government will certainly do everything in their power to meet noble Lords in their natural apprehensions about the Bill. I hope your Lordships will realise that it is not merely a question of Parliamentary time. As realists, we have to consider certain Bills which deal with certain subjects, and inevitably controversy arises. It sometimes takes a substantial amount of time to jump all the Parliamentary hurdles. It is difficulties of the kind outlined that increase the problem of drafting a comprehensive Bill dealing with a subject which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said has got so much out of hand.
  I feel inclined to say to noble Lords opposite, by all means let us see what Amendments and alterations you want us to consider—I speak here as being responsible for television—but please do not let us introduce so many of the more difficult points into this subject that in fact we end up by nearly killing a very useful and necessary Bill, a Bill which deals with this subject, I thoroughly admit, in a very limited way on an interim basis. Both the noble and learned Earl,
  58
  Lord Jowitt, and Lord Mancroft, spoke of the essential need for the point that we have tried to isolate in Clause 2—I know that noble Lords will forgive me if I pass over Clause 1. I think we are agreed upon the urgent need for dealing with the question covered in Clause 2. I should like here to take the opportunity of paying a warm tribute to the promoters of sporting events for the manner in which they have co-operated with us in the last two years, frequently at risk of some loss to themselves. They have done it, I say frankly, mainly on the assurance that we were going to deal with this matter, if only on an interim basis, in the near future. It is possible to bring up all sorts of grievances—for instance, the cases of people who missed payment for copyright and who may have to help to meet the cost. Then there is the case of hotels. I speak with a certain amount of embarrassment here because I think I am Vice-President of the Hotels and Restaurant Proprietors Association.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, and a hotel proprietor.
  EARL DE LA WARR: A part proprietor. I must speak from my heart and say whether I am an interested party or not. I am clear that unless some right is awarded enabling the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. to pay promoters more than they have been paying up till now, there will not be any sporting events at all to be televised: and for the poor old ladies in "Sea View" it will not be a matter whether they have to pay an extra 10s. or £1 in order to see a football cup tie; the football cup tie will not be shown. That is a problem we have to meet. It is really a question of whether these people should so insist upon having something for nothing that, in fact, they get nothing at all. That is the danger. That is the point I would ask the noble Lords, Lord Furness, and Lord Derwent, to face. That is certainly the problem I have had to face, and it is the problem which the Copyright Committee had to face. It is a point that drove the Committee, albeit with reluctance (and I think the fact that they have done it with reluctance really strengthens the case rather than otherwise), to make their recommendation which we are carrying out.
  EARL JOWITT: Which you are carrying out! There is a fundamental difference in that you are dropping these tribunals.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I was going to deal with that point. The noble and learned Earl has said that this Bill is at complete variance with the Report. There is nothing in the Bill that does not arise out of that Report. It is perfectly true that as this is an interim measure there are many things in the Report which are not touched in the Bill. I do not want to commit myself about tribunals for the moment, because I know that in all probability one or more noble Lords will put an Amendment down on the Committee stage and we shall then have to discuss it, but, as the noble and learned Earl has mentioned tribunals, I do not mind saying that I do not think a tribunal is the ultimate solution of the problem. A tribunal can deal with difficulties between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. and one or two people who want to enjoy a public performance, and so on, but if it settles terms that are not agreeable to the promoters, either the promoters will not allow—
  EARL JOWITT: The promoters do not come into it.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thought I had made that plain. We would not for one moment countenance interference by anyone with the free play of negotiation between the B.B.C. and I.T.A. and the sports promoters, because the promoters must of necessity have the last word. It is the chain onwards, from that point, that we are worried about.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think I am quite clear as to what the noble Lord means. Perhaps he means the relationship between the B.B.C. and those who enjoy performances and therefore have to pay. Naturally that will have to be settled by negotiation, as all these performing right questions are now settled. If, in fact, the amount is settled by the tribunal or anyone else at too low a rate, the B.B.C. or I.T.A. will not be able to pay the promoters what they want; therefore the item will not be broadcast. Therefore I think the point I tried to make is a fair one.
  May I now try to deal with a number of points that noble Lords raised? The question has been asked, who will issue the licences? Of course the B.B.C. and I.T.A. will give the licences and will collect their fees.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Jointly or separately?
  EARL DE LA WARR: That is the sort of machinery that will have to be created by those bodies. It is not for the Government to do it. I should have thought that there will almost certainly have to be a central agency if the machinery of collection is to be at all effective. As I said at the beginning of my speech, that is a matter for the collecting bodies who are given the right. If they do not set up effective machinery they will not collect their money. Another question was, who will settle the tariffs? Again, it will have to be the B.B.C. and I.T.A. But the tariff will depend a great deal on what the promoters demand for whatever sport is to be televised. It is obvious that this will be a matter for negotiation. If the broadcasting authority offer too little, they will not get the event. On the other hand, if the promoters ask too much, they will not have their event televised and will not get anything at all. I should imagine that, on the whole, the best way of evolving machinery for dealing with these performances would be to issue a form of blanket licence for all events, or practically all events, perhaps with certain exceptions that might be dealt with separately. I should have thought that a number of the noble Lord's questions would have been answered by making the agencies work on the basis of negotiating a blanket licence in every case between those who want to show sporting events on television and the broadcasting authority. It is obvious that if the machinery is to work at all, there will have to be in the negotiations a difference in the sum demanded by the broadcasting authority from Dorchester Hotel, on the one hand, and from Lord Derwent's friends at Seaview Hotel, on the other.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I quite see the difference between the Dorchester and the Seaview Hotel; that is obvious. But suppose the two are more or less comparable, and that it is agreed in the case of one to pay a blanket fee of 500 guineas—or £5; I do not know what it is going to be—and in the other to exact much more. Surely it would be grossly unfair, unless there were some tribunal to which they could go and say: "This has been given to our rival A on these terms; you ought to be able to give it to us on the same terms," and try to make a case. Surely that must be so.
  EARL DE LA WARR: That sort of problem has been dealt with for years by the Performing Right Society.
  EARL JOWITT: They want a tribunal.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am not saying that there shall never be a tribunal, but there is some question of whether it is wise to risk delaying this Bill by inserting provision for it here. I think my noble friend Lord Mancroft has made it abundantly clear that the Government accept the main recommendations of the Copyright Committee, and undoubtedly the tribunal is one of the main recommendations. Therefore, I think we can take it that we are not discussing whether or not there shall be a tribunal, but whether it is wise to insert it in this small interim measure. I am not in a position to say "Yes" or "No" to that, but I am in a position to say that we shall consider the matter. I think I have dealt with all the noble Lord's points except the question of gramophone records.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl what is going to happen under Section 7 of the Television Act, 1953, which provides that there can be no exclusive broadcast of major sporting events? What is going to happen if there is a difference of opinion about the price to be paid between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C.? Would he tell us that?
  EARL DE LA WARR: If there is a difference of opinion between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. as to what should be paid, and one body has offered to pay a certain sum, then, unless we take some special steps, which we are not intending to take at the moment but which we have powers to take under that section, obviously the authority who are prepared to pay will have the right. I am glad the noble Lord has brought up that matter, because it reminds me of an important point the noble Lord made and with which I neglected to deal. He said that the I.T.A. are going to be in a much better position to pay for an important event. I would ask the noble Lord whether he is quite sure he is right. Talking generally, I should have said that this Bill is far more necessary to the B.B.C. than to the I.T.A. It can certainly be contended that that is so, for the reason that the I.T.A. are really interested in the number of listeners to their programmes, and the more people in private houses, hotels or
  62
  anywhere else who listen, the better will be their organisation. The B.B.C.'s revenue is not affected by the number of listeners to a particular programme. Therefore I think it must be the B.B.C. who gain from this legislation.
  Let me pass to the less theoretical point of what is the financial position now of the B.B.C. Their revenue in 1951 was £12 million a year; by 1954 it had gone up to 18 million a year; in 1955 it is £22½ million; and during the last two years just over 1 million new television licences have been taken out each year.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Less 15 per cent.
  EARL DE LA WARR: No—less a fixed sum for the Treasury; and the Post Office taking only its exact costs of collection.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What is the Treasury sum?
  EARL DE LA WARR: It is £2 million. But that is not taken from the £22½ million. The figure of £22½ million is the B.B.C. revenue, and it has gone up from £12 million in four years. It must be remembered, also, that every television licence that is taken out, even if the viewer who takes it out intends to look only at I.T.A. programmes, will add to the revenue of the B.B.C. Therefore I do not think the noble Lord need have any fear on that account.
  As I said when I commenced my speech, this debate has driven home to me the immense wisdom of the Government in trying to restrict this Bill to points that need dealing with at once. I want to assure your Lordships not only that any points that are brought forward on Committee will be looked at and considered carefully, but that, even if they do not go into this Bill, our pledge that comprehensive legislation will be introduced on the whole subject is not an empty one. We are already engaged in active consideration of the future Bill. I hope I may conclude by again asking your Lordships to move on the Committee stage any Amendments upon which you feel strongly, but not to press them to the point where it may make it difficult to give this Bill the urgent passage that, in my view, it needs.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  TRANSPORT (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
  5.54 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to increase the borrowing powers of the British Transport Commission from £275 million to a total of £600 million. They were fixed at £275 million by the Act of 1947, and of this limit all but £22 million has been used. The first question that will no doubt be asked is: where has the money gone in the seven years that have elapsed since the setting up of the Commission? They have spent on capital expenditure £506 million; on increase in stores £45 million; on repayment of a loan £27 million. That expenditure has been financed as follows: from depreciation funds, £210 million; from pension funds et cetera, £38 million; by borrowing, £253 million; and by drawing upon liquid resources, £77 million. Both of those balance at £578 million. The Commission started with liquid resources of about £300 million, of which £175 million was specifically earmarked in respect of abnormal war-time depreciation and damage. Their liquid resources at the end of 1954 were of the order of £100 million, and with borrowing powers left of only £22 million their position would, without this Bill, soon become impossible.
  Now for the future. One must remember that we are dealing with the whole of the British Transport Commission, and the position is complicated by the railway modernisation plan. It is impossible to draw a hard and fast line, and to say that up to a certain date all railway expenditure is normal replacement and that after that date it becomes part of the modernisation plan. The plan and normality will exist side by side. I must further make it clear that all the new capital will not be for the plan. The explanation of this lies in the inadequacy of depreciation allowances to provide for replacement, even of like by like, at modern prices. I am not going into explanations, for that is a well-known phenomenon affecting all businesses which are not able to make a large enough profit. The result is that, broadly speaking, whenever we replace anything on the railways we have to charge some
  64
  portion of the cost to capital. It follows then that, plan or no plan, we should still need this fresh capital.
  In the next few years there will be three main types of expenditure on the railways. First of all, there will be the normal replacement programme of assets not intended for drastic modernisation, such as buildings, some track and bridges and a few steam locomotives; secondly, there will be the replacement of assets by something more modern envisaged in the plan, such as diesels, signalling and track improvements; and thirdly, there will be the provision of entirely new work, such as new goods yards and big electrification schemes. Categories 2 and 3 will gradually use a greater proportion of the money as the years go by. In the years 1955 to 1959 the British Transport Commission expect to spend £350 million on railways and £100 million on the London Passenger Transport Board and their other activities. That is a total of £450 million. Of this sum, £200 million will be drawn from internal resources. Of the railway share of £350 million, a sum of £250 million will go on rolling stock and £100 million on civil engineering and the like. At the end of that period there would remain £75 million of borrowing powers available for further projects out of the modernisation plan. If this Bill is passed, we expect the Commission to go to the market from time to time to borrow, and they will have the Treasury guarantee in doing so. The Bill itself is self-explanatory. I will do my best to answer any questions that noble Lords may desire to ask. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
  6.0 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has caught the spirit of your Lordships' House in that we do not want to re-hash this debate all over again, as we had an extensive debate upon the railway modernisation scheme two or three weeks ago, when we were favoured with a full speech and explanation by the noble Marquess who leads your Lordships' House, for which we are very grateful. I will confine my remarks to a brief point. I read today with great interest the publication of the new railway charges scheme. Already there is a flutter in the

  65
  dovecotes; the cats are among the pigeons, and some of the folk who were clamouring for more and more competition are now not quite so pleased because the railways have put themselves into a position to meet competition. I applaud them for so doing. I think we are going to have a revolution in railway finance during the next five years, and it is one which I think any sensible business man will applaud. But I am afraid that the murmurings, as opposed to the applause, will come from that section of the community, the trade associations, who thought that once they could get the Government to break up the British Transport Commission's road haulage assets, everything was going to be lovely. But what they will find is that the railways will be able to compete in some traffics far more than they ever anticipated.
  There is one question which worries me about this plan to spend all this money. I am going to make a suggestion to the noble Lord and ask whether he will pass it on to his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the British Transport Commission, on its highest level, is manned sufficiently to enable this modernisation scheme and the spending of £1,200 million to progress as well as it might. In saying that, I am not in any way detracting from the personal virtues or merits of any member of the Commission. What I want to put to the noble Lord, and to the Government, is that I think the time has arrived to think again as to whether it is useful, on these big nationalised boards, to have these part-time members. I was interested in this regard to read the Fleck Committee Report upon the Coal Board. I thought the situation had a somewhat paradoxical humour about it—that the chairman of I.C.I. had to be brought in to investigate what was wrong with the Board upon which sat the chairman of Unilever. The Fleck Committee decided (I do not think that was anything against anybody who sat on the Coal Board) that nobody on these national boards to-day could give adequate service unless he spent practically the whole of his time on them.
  There are admirable men sitting on the British Transport Commission as part-time members who spend practically the whole of their time upon them. Their remuneration is £500 a year gross and,
  66
  net, somewhere in the region of about 100s. I do not think that is a fair way of getting the best out of men. What the Government are doing is running this gigantic concern—perhaps the biggest industrial concern in this country—on a part-time charitable basis. That is not right. I agree with the scheme which has been initiated, by which the Area Boards can be composed, to a large extent, of part-time individuals, but I think that in the proper management of a gigantic scheme, involving the expenditure of the money about which the noble Lord has just told us, there arises the question whether the top-level policy makers are strong enough and can devote sufficient time to this task.
  I hope I have not said anything which in any way detracts from the ability or the merit of anybody who is serving upon the British Transport Commission at the present time. But there is a great job of work to do, and with an industrial concern that is coming right into the cockpit of fierce competitive business to-day. I believe, as the noble Lord has said, that this £1,200 million is guaranteed, both in principal and interest, by the taxpayer of this country.
  LORD HAWKE: May I correct the noble Lord? There is some misapprehension about that the railways are going to borrow £1,200 million to spend. That is not the case. A great deal of the money comes from internal sources.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I know. I believe I am right in saying that about £600 million or £800 million is to be borrowed. But the whole of the assets of the British Transport Commission are guaranteed, in principal and interest, by the taxpayer. It is no good the noble Lord shrugging his shoulders and laughing, because that is a fact.
  LORD HAWKE: That is true. It is a question of the depreciation fund.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But the depreciation fund has to be found. Every halfpenny borrowed and every halfpenny used is guaranteed, both in principal and interest, by the taxpayer; and that is why it is a gilt-edged security. That was the point I tried to make in the debate to which I have just referred—that when the British Transport Commission go on the money market with the Treasury

  67
  behind them, they are in a more favourable position than the ordinary venturer on to the money market who has not a gilt-edged guarantee to reinforce his prospectus. But so far as I am concerned, and all who sit on this side of the House—in fact, I think every noble Lord in this House—I wish the British Transport Commission the best of good fortune. We hope they will utilise every halfpenny they find it necessary to borrow under the powers given by this Bill to the best advantage of the State and of the individual citizen of this country.
  6.8 p.m.
  LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships many minutes. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, into a discussion of the future of the organisation of the Transport Commission, though I was extremely interested to note what the chairman of I.C.I. had to say and the emphasis which he laid upon the importance of allowing the headquarters chief technical people a right of control right the way down the line, and not to have to filter their instructions and their supervision through local area managers—precisely the feature of organisation which the Transport Commission thought it essential to institute in 1947, and the very thing which was attacked and which has now, to some extent, been weakened. However, I do not think this is the right opportunity for pursuing that question, still less for reopening the arguments about integration and the inadvisability of attempting to deal with railways and not with transport.
  I was also surprised to see how lightly the spokesman for the Government treated the contribution which the road haulage organisation have been able to make in the last two or three years to the finances of the Transport Commission. When they failed to make profits, they were roundly abused. Now that they make them, they are told that those profits are of small account. The figure of some £6 million clear profit a year is a small figure in relation to the total gross receipts of the consolidated business of the Transport Commission, but it is not a small figure in relation to its net receipts and the amount required for meeting its capital and other central charges.
  68
  However, I do not want to dilate upon that; nor do I want to go at length into the other question of finance which arose, that the new basis of charging will make the financial prospects of the Commission quite satisfactory. I find it difficult to see any consistency in the argument that the railways will get back a great deal of long-distance traffic from the roads, in view of the inducement that is offered to the road haulier to come back into that very business. I still think that the transport problem will not be solved by large expenditures simultaneously undertaken upon both the railways and the roads, leaving the two methods of transport to compete with one another on the principle of "the devil take the hindmost. "In this particular matter, the hindmost, I fear, is likely to be the coastwise shipowners, with whom, from my past positions, I have very great sympathy. Therefore, it is necessary, in considering this very large capital expenditure making large but by no means disproportionate demands on public finance, to look rather more closely at the financial prospects of the Commission.
  I still think that it is not enough to assume that fifteen or more years hence, when all the people at present responsible will, by effluxion of time, have ceased to be responsible, things will be found to be in a completely satisfactory position. I think one ought to look much more closely at the facts than that. That is why I ventured on a recent occasion to put some questions to the noble Lord in charge of this Bill. I apologise to him for not having been in my place when he dealt with what I had said; I had the pleasure of hearing the rest of his speech but, unfortunately, I missed that. The questions which I then put to him, and which he said it was not practicable to answer, were four. Let me say at once that I appreciate as much as anyone can all the difficulties of estimating, whether they are the estimates of a Department or the estimates of one of these vast national undertakings. In the case of the Departments, the accounting officer has to appear before a committee in another place and explain just why his estimates have gone wrong. I do not want to see my successor and my old colleagues in the Transport Commission put through that particular form of machinery. It is useless and vain to hope for absolute precision in estimates of this kind, but I

  69
  cannot but think that it is possible to come to approximations, allowing for variations one way or the other of perhaps a few millions on a business of this size.
  The first question I asked was: What is going to be the financial position at the end of this current year? That, at any rate, the Commission itself must know. I find it difficult to think that it has not informed or warned Her Majesty's Government of what the position is likely to be, on the assumption that there is no alteration in fares and charges. From what has already been said and what is known, the deficiency accrued at the end of last year is £40 million and by now £50 million. A quarter of the present year has gone and the deficiency, week by week, must be considerable. I will not ask the noble Lord to say what is in the minds either of the Commission or of Her Majesty's Government about increasing fares and charges, but if they are not increased quickly and substantially, from what has already been said the deficiency at the end of this year will amount to something in the neighbourhood of £80 million. If there is an increase in charges or some big recovery of traffic, then of course that figure will be correspondingly reduced. But, with figures of that order in prospect, I thought it was not unreasonable to ask to what maximum figure the accumulated deficiency was likely to rise, because, though it is sensible, and indeed necessary, to take one year with another, I never thought that that could be stretched into meaning taking one decade, with another.
  There must, therefore, I submit, as a test of policy, be some idea of the maximum figure to which the deficiency should be allowed to mount; and, still more important, by what year the financial equilibrium, which has been so unfortunately lost, is likely to be recovered. Those seem to me to be reasonable questions. Still more reasonable, because perhaps less precise, is the question about where the finances of the Commission are likely to stand, not in 1970 but in 1960. I put that question in that form because I am convinced that it is unrealistic and unwise to cast one's mind so far ahead as 1970, and also because I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it would be unreasonable and hardly possible to say just where the
  70
  Commission would be likely to stand at the end of each year, taking it year by year. That would not be easy and in any case ought not at this stage, I think, to be divulged.
  Those were the questions which I felt it necessary to raise and which perhaps were more appropriate to this Bill than to the debate at that time. The reason, as I then said, why I think they are important is that upon the answers to them might depend the success of those aspects of Her Majesty's Government's policy with which I have expressed myself in full agreement—namely, the possibility of continuing to avoid subsidy and also the possibility of making an unstinted provision of new capital where it can be profitably employed. It is in relation to that wider question of Government policy that I have ventured to ask my questions. I have no desire to press the noble Lord to answer them if he finds them too difficult or too inconvenient. I can well imagine that there may be reasons for not attempting even approximations in too many directions at this particular moment.
  As regards the Bill itself, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for the information which he gave. He stated most clearly that a great deal of the money to be raised will have to go in meeting the enhanced cost of ordinary renewals. That is a position in which, unfortunately every great business finds itself—there is nothing special to nationalised undertakings about that. One cannot make profits high enough or put charges high enough to meet these huge increases in cost out of current revenue. I also noted with great interest that the noble Lord said something with regard to the phasing of the capital expenditure, and indicated how much will be spent during the period 1955–59. Taking everything together, when we realise how much of the new money must go to meet these enhanced costs of normal depreciation and how much is required to finance (temporarily, I hope) the deficiency and other things of that kind, the amount which is left for new capital developments and improvements, in the strict sense, is modest enough. I think Her Majesty's Government are to be thanked by all those interested in transport for having agreed, after all these years of austerity, to make the necessary money available. I think the Commission is fortunate in finding its path cleared in this direction after some weary

  71
  years of waiting. I wish it every success. I suspect that it will not be very long before further borrowing powers will have to be authorised. Meanwhile, this is a substantial but by no means excessive allocation of the nation's capital resources to this vital public service.
  6.22 p.m.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I had put my name down to speak on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the future of road and rail transport, but as that was a wide Motion and I knew that this Bill dealing with the financial side was coming along, I removed my name because I wanted to say a few words on this Bill. While I naturally support the Bill because I feel that the railways and the Transport Commission as a whole have been starved of new capital since the war, I should like to say a few words on the latter part of the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, where he dealt with depreciation. Perhaps I have a bee in my bonnet about depreciation, but I was brought up in the hard school of banking where one has to try to see that sufficient appreciation is shown of these problems.
  I know that everything that is bought to-day costs about three times as much as it would have cost before the war. I know, too, that it is difficult to allow sufficient depreciation to cover replacements of assets at to-day's prices—I think that is what accountants call historical assets and actual assets. At the same time, I ventured to criticise slightly the increased borrowing powers granted to the British Electricity Authority and to the Gas Council when my noble friend, Lord Hawke, introduced in your Lordships' House at the end of last summer Bills relating to those authorities. Those were fairly large amounts. Both these great authorities were making profits, although they were modest profits; but in my humble opinion those bodies were not putting sufficient to depreciation. Therefore they will have to charge a proportion of their new capital charges to their capital account. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has to-day said that a substantial amount will have to be charged to the capital account of the Commission. In the last published accounts, in 1953, the Transport Commission show a loss of £27 million, and in 1952, the year before, they lost £31 million, We are hoping
  72
  that by this modernisation programme they will be able to earn and save a good deal of money.
  LORD HURCOMB: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but did he say that those were figures of loss?
  LORD WOLVERTON: Well, I thought so. The figures are contained on page 5 of the Report—"Net Revenue Account—Balance (deficit) at 31st December, 1953, £27,294,798."
  LORD HURCOMB: I am very sorry, I misheard the noble Lord. I did not hear his figure of £27 million.
  LORD WOLVERTON: I said that, and also that the year before it was £31 million.
  LORD HURCOMB: Of which £17 million is represented by amortisation of capital.
  LORD WOLVERTON: If that is agreed, all right. To go on, I think we were told in the earlier debate that the Transport Commission would probably be able to finance about £400 million out of internal reserves and they may have to borrow anything from £600 million to £800 million for new works in the next fifteen years. If one takes the sum of £600 million and one is lucky enough to borrow that money over the next twenty-five years at 4 per cent., a 2 per cent. cumulative sinking fund would wipe off that money in twenty-five years. That would cost the Transport Commission about £24 million in interest and £14,400,000 for the sinking fund, making a total of £38,400,000. On top of that there is this question of depreciation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I feel that in the next few years we shall have to face up to the position of the balance sheet as it is today. Unfortunately we do not know what it is going to be at the end of this year, but it may be necessary to raise fares slightly. That is an unpleasant thing to do, but until the modernisation scheme comes into operation—it is a long-term scheme—one must try and keep the Commission on an even keel to pay its way. That is what is worrying me. What is going to happen in the next eight or ten years? I know they can go on borrowing. We are being asked to give them permission to-day to borrow another £325 million. But I think one should not try to use too much of the capital for renewals.

  73
  In regard to the main scheme, we were told that £600 million would be for renewals and £600 million for new capital works. If they can provide only £400 million out of their internal reserves it is obvious that £200 million must come out of new money. That is what is worrying me. I hope that we shall move steadily on this programme and not go too fast. I hope that first we shall do the things which the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, and others have said are essential in the way of signalling and marshalling yards, and so on. If we do that, then we shall be able to speed up the trains and get a better service. I hope we shall not rush too much at electrification. I have tried to take out a few figures in regard to the cost of electrification of the main lines and the South Eastern Region of the Southern Railway and also the suburban lines. It is proposed to spend £185 million on that. If one takes those figures in the same way on a 4 per cent. borrowing basis, with a 2 per cent. sinking fund repayable over twenty-five years (which noble Lords may not consider unreasonable), the cost would be about £7,400,000 in interest and £4,400,000 in sinking fund—£11,800,000 in all. I hope that steady progress will be achieved, dealing with the most essential things first to increase the revenue of the Commission.
  I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, about centralisation and decentralisation. I feel that the setting up of these Area Boards was one of the most important things done by Her Majesty's Government. The Boards can be of great help to the Commission in seeing that this vast expenditure is wisely spent. Very able men have been picked, and if, as we hope, the Commission is swift in delegating authority to ensure wise spending, we shall in the years to come have a railway system as good as in the past. I am still worried about depreciation and should like to see more of the depreciation earned. With those remarks, I support this Bill.
  6.32 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I first reply to my noble friend Lord Wolverton? Anybody who has been connected with railways over the last ten or twenty years will know that his remarks about depreciation are only too true. I can only reply, in the vernacular, "You're telling me!"
  74
  But one cannot conjure depreciation allowances out of an industry which is not earning them. The problem is that of revenue. But the noble Lord is perfectly right to say that the speeding-up of marshalling yards and signalling is probably more important than the more spectacular part of the plan.
  We are glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth (who apologised for having to leave), welcomed the Bill and the charges scheme. He raised the very important point of the technical manning of the plan. The Transport Commission would be the first people to admit that throughout the railways of the country they are short of technical executives, particularly on electrification. I very much doubt whether one can ameliorate that position by altering the system of control at the top and by having the part-time members of the board changed to fulltime members. After all, by the time the, matter comes to that level for decision the technical details have already been severely threshed out. In my own experience, the vast majority of questions that come to the top in a railway are questions to be decided by common sense rather than by technical knowledge. The noble Lord may have an important point in the fact that the unfortunate part-time directors are being worked too hard. My right honourable friend will certainly be interested to hear that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, never disguises his point of view. He has been a centraliser for many years, and feels a good deal of scepticism towards this whole modernisation plan. He feels that possibly the same, or even better, results could be achieved without a particular modernisation scheme by merely carrying out a number of replacements and at the same time integrating the railways with roads to form a national transport monopoly. I admit that that might possibly do the trick; but the one thing we have determined to prevent is a national transport monopoly.
  LORD HURCOMB: I do not in the least criticise the features of the technical plan—I think they are all admirable or necessary in principle and should have gone on simultaneously. I can only say that they are not an alternative to the other policy. Had you followed both you would then have had a really satisfactory result.
  LORD HAWKE: I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Lord. He certainly gave me the impression that he thought this was an alternative and that he rather believed in the monopoly line in preference to spending all this new capital. The noble Lord has asked me to put forward a certain number of figures. After looking at the existing information and surmises for the future, I came to the conclusion that it would be most unwise for me to attempt any such prognostications of the future. I might land myself in the position of the witness who starts by having not the faintest idea how fast the defendant was travelling but who ultimately is led to admit that he was going at exactly 42½ miles an hour. I think the noble Lord has arrived at a certain philsophy of his own. I believe that he has added together a lot of pessimistic deductions. He may be right, but he has not taken much into account on the possibly favourable side. Undoubtedly during this current year the Commission are making very strenuous efforts to reduce their costs. They are closing branch lines. They have had new assurances of co-operation from the trade unions on the setting up of a productivity council.
  Finally, as we all know, they have submitted to the Transport Tribunal a railway merchandise charges scheme. I would have the noble Lord note here, as a corroboration of my case that we are moving into unknown territory, along paths which have never been trod, the fact that the charges scheme, as put before the Tribunal, does not, I believe, make any estimate of benefit to be derived from it. The proposal is considered too revolutionary to enable detailed estimates to be made of its precise effects; but, naturally,
  76
  the scheme must be administered with the flexibility provided to see that revenue is not down but, as we hope, up. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with that. I am not prepared to make estimates for 1955, and five years ahead, when the accounts for 1954 are not yet closed, and when several important subjects are still not settled, as the noble Lord knows.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

  FISHERIES BILL
  6.40 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Northern Ireland Bill, has consented to place the interests of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at eighteen minutes before seven o'clock.