Sitting of 27 November 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Catering Wages (Unlicensed Residential Establishments)
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to carry out the repeated recommendations of the Catering Wages Commission for the establishment of a wages board for the 100,000 employees in the unlicensed residential establishments.
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there are approximately 100,000 workers engaged in the catering industry whose wages and conditions are not covered by the Catering Wages Act; and if he will introduce amending legislation and thus provide protection for these workers.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 13th November.
    Mr. Gibson: Surely the Minister realises that that answer is completely unsatisfactory? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is the Minister aware that the Commission has expressed itself very strongly about the delay in setting up a wages board for unlicensed residential establishments and that it says in its Report for 1956 that it has repeatedly pressed for the fullest implementation of
    1130
    the Catering Wages Act? It goes on to say that 100,000 workers are without the protection prescribed for them by the Act. Is it not time that the Ministry made up its mind that those important sections of the catering industry should have the protection that this House has afforded them?
    Mr. Macleod: I wish it were as simple as that. I think everybody who has been Minister of Labour and has studied this problem has come to the conclusion that we cannot solve the problem of the small boarding house in a way appropriate to other sections of the industry.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Minister proposing to ignore entirely the provisions of the Act and the representations of the Commission? If so, why not abolish the Commission? What purpose does it serve if its representations are to be ignored? Why is the Minister so solicitous of the well-being of the employers in this branch of the industry and so indifferent to the well-being of the workers?
    Mr. Macleod: It is a question of finding a practical method of carrying out the Act. So far as the future of the Catering Wages Commission is concerned, I have said in my reply that the problem can only be solved as part of a review of the whole problem of catering wages.

    Coal Mines (Vacancies and Foreign Workers)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies for miners exist today.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: About 4,600.
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour how many Hungarians and other foreigners are now working in the mines; and how many more are now available in this country or elsewhere.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: 10,500 foreigners, of whom 498 are Hungarians, are working in coal mines. Five hundred more Hungarians are in training centres of the National Coal Board. I have no information about the availability of any other foreigners for coalmining.
    Mr. Pentland: Would not the Minister agree that in modern times one of the greatest deterrents to recruiting for the

    1131
    pits is the risk involved? Is it not true that, despite all the work that has been done by the National Coal Board, the number of men suffering from pneumoconiosis increases in our pits year by year? Would not the Minister further agree that, although the fatal accident figures for 1956 were the lowest on record—for which we are all very grateful—they still mean that for every working day more than one miner was killed last year? In addition, would not the Minister further agree that there were—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I will finish on this point—more than 220,000 men seriously injured in the pits, which meant in fact that for every two and a half—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is much too long for a supplementary question. The Question was about Hungarians.
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to disagree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland), but his remarks go a long way beyond the purely factual Question on the Paper.

    Non-Ferrous Foundries (Report)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Labour when the draft regulations based on the White Paper Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Conditions in Non-ferrous Foundries will be circulated.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question on 30th October. I am not yet able to say when decisions are likely to be reached regarding draft regulations.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that this Committee was set up four years ago and that this is the third question of vital importance to foundry workers which has been raised with him in the last three weeks, the reply in each case being unsatisfactory? Is it surprising that foundry-men are asking why the Minister acts so slowly?
    Mr. Carr: I am aware also that the Report contains no less than 86 recommendations. This involves a fair number of issues which must be resolved, and, even when the issues of substance are resolved, the actual drafting will be by
    1132
    no means a simple matter. These Reports really cannot be rushed through too quickly, because many consultations have to take place.

    Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour how many of the persons at present unemployed in Newcastle-under-Lyme are suffering from tuberculosis; for what periods they have been unemployed; and what special measures are being taken to provide opportunities of work for such persons.
    Mr. Carr: The number of persons suffering from tuberculosis who are registered as unemployed at the Newcastle-under-Lyme Employment Exchange is 10, of whom four have been out of work for six months or less and the rest for longer periods. During the past year officers of my Department and chest physicians have made special approaches to employers in the Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme areas, and nearly 200 tuberculous people either returned to their previous employers or were resettled in other jobs. There are three Remploy factories providing sheltered employment in North Staffordshire.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, while this is obviously a small number, the local representatives on the employment committee are very concerned about these cases and also about the fact that in the neighbouring Borough of Stoke-on-Trent there is quite a large number of cases, especially when those suffering from chest diseases are taken into account? Will he, therefore, give sympathetic attention to the possibilities of further opportunities of employment for these people?
    Mr. Carr: I am aware of the concern, and also of some of the difficulties because of the lack of diversity of industry for them in the area. I hope, however, that the number I mentioned as having gone into work in this last year is a sign of our activities having some results.

    Car Delivery Drivers, Coventry (Wages)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a strong possibility of a dispute between

    1133
    the Transport and General Workers' Union and car delivery agents in the Coventry district; that this would disrupt production in Coventry's motor industry and prejudice the delivery of cars for the export market; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Transport and General Workers' Union has invited car delivery agents in Coventry to send representatives to a meeting on 3rd December to discuss proposals for an agreement on the wages and conditions of drivers. No report of an apprehended dispute has been made to my Department, and it would appear premature at this stage to contemplate such a possibility.
    Miss Burton: I am aware of that information and am glad that it was sent to his Department, but does the Minister realise that there is very great dissatisfaction among the car delivery drivers in the Transport and General Workers' Union in Coventry, and is he further aware that the leaders of the union in Coventry are particularly anxious that there should be no strike action in this matter and it should be settled by discussion? Would he be prepared to use his offices to help to bring this about?
    Mr. Macleod: We will watch what happens, of course, but I must say that I think it is too gloomy to contemplate losses of export orders as a result of a dispute which has not arisen following on a meeting which has not yet taken place. However, we will keep a watch on the position, with my local people.

    Royal Ordnance Factories
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons employed in the production of ordnance, armoured fighting vehicles and small arms; and the total number of employees in Royal Ordnance factories.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: At the end of September, 1957, there were about 65,000 persons employed by establishments producing ordnance, armoured fighting vehicles and small arms. There were 37,000 people employed in Royal Ordnance factories, some of whom are included in the figure of 65,000.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that the Government have stated that the Royal Ordnance factories are to be the
    1134
    preferred source for conventional arms, though the figures he has given, which show a huge proportion taken by private industry, make nonsense of this assurance?
    Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman knows that that question should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.

    Industrial Disputes (Arbitration)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Labour what consideration he has given to the desirability of legislation to consolidate the law relating to arbitration in industrial disputes.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The only general legislation on this subject consists of two short Acts; the Conciliation Act of 1896 and the Industrial Courts Act of 1919, and in addition there is the Industrial Disputes Order of 1951. The two Acts do not, in my opinion, require consolidation, and, as I have already informed the House, the future of the Industrial Disputes Order is being discussed with both sides of industry.
    Mr. Iremonger: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the confusion which exists as to the precise procedure whereby arbitration can be called into play when a recommendation is made by a Whitley Council which requires approval or otherwise by a Minister?
    Mr. Macleod: I should not have thought, after the discussions we have had, that that matter is in particular doubt, and I do not think that the point my hon. Friend has in mind would be helped by the consolidation of the legislation which already exists, consisting of two very short Acts which are quite convenient in that form.
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Labour what consideration he has given to the desirability of legislation to put upon arbitration tribunals a duty to have regard to the economic interests of the general public, in the light of the advice of the Council on Prices, Productivity, and Incomes, when making awards in industrial wage disputes.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I should not want, in advance of the Council's report, to express a view on the best way of giving effect to any suggestions the Council may make.
    Mr. Iremonger: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the public interest is indeed a factor which should be borne in mind by arbitration tribunals and courts in making their awards?
    Mr. Macleod: It has always been made clear by Chancellors of the Exchequer, including, of course, the present holder of that office, that they consider that those who arbitrate should have regard to a number of matters, of which the one my hon. Friend mentions is clearly one.
    Mr. J. T. Price: With respect to what the Minister has just said, which we all understand, how can it be said that any judicial tribunal can function equitably if, in fact, the scales are loaded against it before it begins to examine the evidence? Can it be said in truth that a judicial tribunal should be given any kind of instruction or guidance from outside when it is sitting in the capacity of judge?
    Mr. Macleod: There is no particular detailed instruction given, but it is clearly right that there are general considerations which should be borne in mind.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The Minister referred to the fact that he was waiting for the Report of the Council. Is this Council being asked to consider the form and content of all arbitration proceedings? What relation has that to this new Council?
    Mr. Macleod: No, Sir; no instructions have been given to the Council beyond the terms of reference with which the House is familiar.
    Dame Irene Ward: As it is pertinent to the point, may I ask my right hon. Friend how the negotiation between employers and employed on the question of the amendment of the Industrial Disputes Order is getting on? It has been a long time.
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, it has been a long time, and I am aware of my hon. Friend's particular interest in certain bodies which might be brought within the scope of a new Order. I hope that we can make our final proposals known to the country fairly soon.

    Opera Companies
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be unemployed through the Arts Council having become unable to maintain in employment the personnel of opera companies for whom they are by virtue of capital investment responsible.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that I cannot make such an estimate.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when unemployment threatens Covent Garden, affecting a London opera company, the Treasury rushes in additional subsidies, but that when an opera company from the Provinces is threatened the Treasury digs in its toes? In order that there may be fairness and Treasury money may be allocated fairly, is it not time that a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the whole problem of the allocation of subsidies to the arts? Will my right hon. Friend, with his great knowledge, recommend this to the Treasury so that the interests of those who come under the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend's Department may be looked after?
    Mr. Macleod: I will not promise to recommend it, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what my hon. Friend has said. The question of the grant made by the Government to the Arts Council is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

    West Fife
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the increasing anxiety in West Fife about future employment prospects consequent on the closure and impending closure of certain textile factories; and what steps he intends to take to allay such anxiety.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am aware that one textile factory has closed and that another is expected to close. The majority of the people who have left these two factories have found other work. My local officers will continue to do everything possible to submit those still unemployed to other vacancies.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to the textile

    1137
    industry running down, there is apprehension concerning a rubber company in the Dunfermline area, and that whilst it may be true that the younger people are finding little difficulty in obtaining alternative employment, it is becoming exceedingly difficult—and has, indeed, always been exceedingly difficult—for middle-aged and married women to get alternative work once these textile firms are closed down?
    Mr. Macleod: I know about the textile position, but I did not know about the rubber company. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me look into that. It is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that although there is a very small male unemployment figure in the area, the real difficulty is in the female unemployment. Knowing that, we will do what we can to help.

    Swansea
    Mr. P. Morrisasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women unemployed in the County Borough of Swansea on the latest available date, as compared with November, 1956.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The available figures relate to employment exchange areas. At 11th November, 1957, there were 3,297 registered as unemployed at employment exchanges in Swansea, compared with 1,134 at 12th November, 1956.
    Mr. Morris: In view of the disturbing figures and the increasing anxiety in South Wales, will the right hon. Gentleman try to prevail upon his Ministerial colleagues, who recently met a deputation from South Wales, to implement their promise to provide alternative industries, especially of a light engineering character, as soon as possible?
    Mr. Macleod: I understand the anxiety. I think that the deputation to which the hon. Member refers was a useful one, and we will follow it up as well as we can.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the figures he quoted are for 11th November, but that news comes to us every day of the closure of another old tinplate works, that these figures for Swansea—indeed, for the whole of West Wales—increase day by day and that there is growing anxiety there? Will the
    1138
    right hon. Gentleman urge the President of the Board of Trade, in particular, and the Minister of Power to keep these facts in mind, because this is an area which is badly in need of other industries?
    Mr. Macleod: I understand that. I know that my colleagues in the Government are very conscious of it, and I will bring to their notice what has been said in the House today.

    Factories Act (Fines)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour how many cases have been brought to his attention in the last five years in which fines have been imposed under Section 133 of the Factories Act, 1937; in how many of these cases he has directed that the fine should he paid to the injured person, or to the dependants in fatal cases; and by what principles he is guided in deciding whether the fine should be so awarded.
    Mr. Carr: From the beginning of 1953 to the present day, 31 cases have been brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend for consideration of award of the fine imposed under Section 133. The whole or part of the fine has been awarded in 26 of these.
    When deciding whether an award should be made, consideration is given to all the circumstances arising from the injury to the worker. Particular account is taken of ways in which the money awarded can be used for some definite purpose helpful to the injured person or his dependants, having regard to the other benefits and remedies available.

    Blind Persons (Protection)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that concern has been occasioned to the members of the National Association of Workshops for the Blind by the activities of persons and firms who market domestic articles at excessive prices by falsely representing that the goods they sell are made by, or provide employment for, blind persons; and if, in order to protect the blind and prevent fraudulent trading on the sympathy of the general public, he will introduce a regulation requiring that firms claiming to promote the interests of the blind, who are not already registered as charities or under the National Assistance Act, shall be compelled so to register and

    1139
    that authority shall be taken to grant or refuse registration.
    Mr. Carr: I am aware of the concern which activities of the kind to which the hon. Member refers are arousing. Not only may these harm the interests of bona fide organisations and of the blind themselves, but I consider it most undesirable that by means of misleading representations public sympathy for the blind should be exploited. I am doubtful whether the method suggested by the hon. Member would be practicable, but I am considering the whole problem. Meanwhile, much can be done by suitable publicity. Moreover, arrangements have recently been made whereby my Department is consulted by the Board of Trade where a firm or company seeks the registration of a name which suggests the employment of disabled people, whether blind or sighted.
    Mr. Collins: Whilst thanking the Minister for that very satisfactory reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this scandalous practice is on the increase and is no longer confined merely to firms using registered titles such as "Blind employment" who masquerade as the real thing, but includes firms who trade on the natural sympathies of the public and charge, for example. 2s. 6d. for this piece of rag which is not worth 2d., simply because they print on the envelope "Packed by the blind"? In his efforts to find a way out of this trouble and to stop it, will the Minister invite the cooperation of Members on both sides who are concerned to protect the interests and ensure the proper employment of the blind?
    Mr. Carr: I will certainly do all those things. I am well aware that the steps we have recently taken concerning the registration of companies' names do not meet the entire problem, although, I hope, they meet part of it. I am considering the remainder and I will certainly invite the co-operation of Members on all sides of the House and will welcome the chance of discussing the matter with them at any time.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this is a matter of urgency, because many fine organisations which are doing a great deal of good work will suffer if this threat overhangs them for a long time?
    Mr. Carr: Yes. Part of the difficulty is that we want to stop the abuse without injuring people who are doing genuine work. I am considering the matter urgently.

    Scientists and Engineers
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consult representatives of industry, the universities and the technical colleges in order to devise a procedure for the interviewing overseas of scientists and engineers who apply for positions in this country.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Arrangements for interviewing scientists and engineers overseas must, in general, be the responsibility of prospective employers, but I am considering what assistance my Ministry can give.
    Mr. Albu: While the attractions of employment in North America are, I think, decreasing at the present time, does not the Minister think that this is a quite serious permanent problem to which the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy has drawn attention, and that it is not only a matter of interest to industry but that the universities and technical colleges are also concerned and some of these need to interview overseas as well?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, I think that is true. It is a real problem. The Federation of British Industries, among others, is considering what it can do about it and is aware that my Ministry will be very happy to help, if we can.

    Personnel Advisory Service
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to establish members of his Department's Personnel Advisory Service.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I cannot say whether or when any of these posts will be established.
    Mr. Albu: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this department is doing an extremely valuable job, and has been doing it for many years? Does he not think the time has now come to make it a permanent part of his Department?
    Mr. Macleod: I think there are arguments on both sides. Certainly there are for establishing these posts, but there is

    1141
    something to be said for keeping a certain number of them temporary to enable contact to be swifter between my Department and industry.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Teachers
    Mr. Hannanasked the Minister of Labour if he has considered one of the principal recommendations of the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland, namely, that teachers or student teachers should forthwith be indefinitely deferred from National Service; and if he will now announce his decision.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. The views of the Advisory Council were among the matters taken into consideration before I announced changes in the arrangements for the deferment of teachers on 2nd July. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my statement.
    Mr. Hannan: We are aware of the information to which the Minister refers, but the Council went further and asked that all teachers, including student teachers, should be exempt in view of the looming crisis in education in Scotland, which will mean a shortage of about 3,000 teachers by 1960. Will he reconsider this matter as one vital to the national interest?
    Mr. Macleod: I am aware of the point, but the distance we went on 2nd July in relation to first aid second class arts graduates was as far as we felt we could go at that time. I keep an open mind on the question, and I am always prepared to look at it.
    Mr. Jennings: Would my right hon. Friend care to state what the position is with regard to teachers and teachers in training in England and Wales at the present time?
    Mr. Macleod: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend means by that wide question. If he means the number deferred under these proposals of mine in July, the answer is 229, including 31 in Scotland.

    Dentists
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Minister of Labour on what basis the allocation is made between the three Services of dentists called up for National Service.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The requirements of the three Services are examined periodically by the Dental Manpower Committee which was appointed by the Government in consultation with the profession. Dentists, like doctors, are recruited direct for Commissioned Service as dental officers, so far as possible in the Service of their choice.
    Mr. Stonehouse: What is the position if one of the allocations to one of the Services is not taken up? Further, in view of the great need in some areas for dentists to be available for civilian work, particularly in the school service, will he consider releasing more for civilian work?
    Mr. Macleod: It is quite true that there is a shortage of dentists in civilian life, but the Army—indeed, all three Services, I think—have for some years been below their establishments in dental officers.

    Conscientious Objectors
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Labour if he will take administrative steps to implement the recommendations of the Franks Report regarding conscientious objectors' tribunals in relation to the age limits for tribunal service, the desirability of informal settings for tribunal meetings, the limitation of the practice of oath-taking, and the distribution to local tribunals of decisions of appellate tribunals in test cases.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: It has been my policy for some time to appoint younger members of conscientious objector tribunals, and this will be continued. I also propose to bring to the notice of the tribunals the recommendations of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries, including the recommendations referred to by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Brockway: In thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to give particular attention to the last point in the Question, which is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman himself: that is, the proposal that in view of the contradictory decisions by tribunals, the appellate tribunals should distribute decisions in test cases?
    Mr. Macleod: I agree with the hon. Member that that is, perhaps, the most important of the recommendations in the

    1143
    Franks Report, and we will direct special attention to it. I should not, however, like anything I say to be taken as interfering with the entire independence of the tribunals in the way that they conduct their affairs.

    Call-up
    Mr. Deedesasked the Minister of Labour if he will give an estimate of the number of young men born between 1st July and 30th September, 1939, who cannot be yet informed whether or not they will be required to do National Service.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I estimate that the number is about 75,000.
    Mr. Deedes: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, a very large number of these young men are now in the position of being offered or choosing future jobs and are, therefore, uncertain as to their future. Can he say how soon he will be able to give more definite information about what is required of them?
    Mr. Macleod: I would hope that we would be able to do it as the White Paper prophesied: that is, we would make a further statement, although it may not be until early next year.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the Government's intention to abolish National Service, if he will introduce early legislation to amend the National Service Acts so as to exempt from National Service men who are urgently required in industry.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper on Call-up of Men to the Forces 1957–60.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time he took powers to keep in industry people who are more essential in industry than in the Army? Does he not recollect the case I submitted to him, the case of Alexander Millar of Ayrshire, whose call-up put 25 looms out of operation? Does not call-up in such circumstances create unemployment and trade difficulties? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think he should take special powers to deal with cases of this kind?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think so. I think we must try to cover those special
    1144
    cases through the arrangements to meet hardships and others for postponements. What the hon. Member is suggesting is a form of selective service, and the Government have decided against that.

  POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN (CONVENTION)
  Mrs. Emmetasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the Government's intention to ratify the Convention on the Political Rights of Women during the sitting of the Assembly of the United Nations; and if he will give the reasons leading to their decision in this matter.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ormsby-Gore): No, Sir. Although Her Majesty's Government support the principles embodied in this Convention, they are not able to adhere to it. The main reason, as my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Lady on 25th March, is the absence of a Territorial Application Article.
  Mrs. Emmet: I understand the difficulty is the position of women in some of our Colonial Territories. Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to see how far that difficulty is as great as it was and consult the Colonial Secretary to see whether steps could be taken to bring those conditions into such a state that we can now sign the Convention?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am sure it is my right hon. Friend's intention to try to bring about that state of affairs. He has consulted the Colonial Territories concerned, but it would be quite wrong in present circumstances for the Government to undertake this obligation when the conditions in those Territories do not conform with this Convention.

  INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
  Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken this year to alter the conditions under which Her Majesty's Government will accept the rulings of the International Court at The Hague in disputes with other countries; when the decisions were made; and why Parliament was not consulted at the time they were made.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in the House on 8th November during the course of the debate on the Address.
  Mr. Dodds: Will not the Secretary of State be a little more forthcoming than that? Is it not a fact that the decision was made in April and not disclosed until Parliament was in Recess? Is it not a fact that the alteration means that unless we are judges in our own cause we shall not play? Having struck a disastrous blow at the United Nations through the Suez adventure, is it not a serious matter that again we strike another blow at laws designed to keep the peace between nations? What do the Government want—international anarchy?
  Mr. Lloyd: As to whether I have been forthcoming or not, I referred the hon. Member to the statement I made recently, which takes up more than three columns in HANSARD, and in which I set out the whole of the position. Our position is that we regard our obligations in this on a basis of reciprocity. I, for one, am not prepared to have matters of national security referred to this tribunal when fifty other countries are not bound by the Optional Clause at all. The whole purpose behind the International Court of Justice was that countries should go there on the basis of reciprocity.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As there was a great deal that was obscure in what the Foreign Secretary said on 8th November, and as there is widespread anxiety in the country about this matter, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider laying a White Paper explaining, first, what he meant by the Ponsonby Rule, and secondly, the reasons for his action on the Optional Clause? Will he recall that the Labour Government in 1929 laid such an explanatory memorandum when they signed the Optional Clause?
  Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider an explanatory memorandum. In my speech on 8th November, I dealt with the matter in great detail. The right hon. Gentleman has referred again to the Ponsonby Rule. Since 8th November, I have gone further into that matter, and I am advised that the purpose of the Ponsonby Rule was to enable Parliament to discuss treaties requiring ratification
  1146
  before ratification took place. That situation does not arise in this case.
  As to the suggestion of the hon. Member that I was trying to conceal this, this decision was communicated to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for onward transmission to 82 countries members of the United Nations, and it was also sent to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the Foreign Secretary failed to supply a copy of what he had done to Members of this House or to the Press, and that no Government have treated the House of Commons in such a way for forty years?
  Mr. Lloyd: If that is a supplementary question. I think it is perfectly ridiculous.
  Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MEETING)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the latest developments in the field of intercontinental and medium range ballistic missiles, he will lay before the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference in December plans to wind up the rival military alliances and replace them by an all-European treaty based on the Charter, within which Germany could be re-unified, armaments controlled and Anglo-American and Soviet forces withdrawn from the Continent.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.
  Mr. Zilliacus: is it not a fact that the development of ballistic missiles by the Soviet Union has made the land forces and bomber bases of N.A.T.O. an out-of-date and useless anachronism? Is is not a further fact that the more we pile up nuclear weapons on both sides the greater is the danger of war? Would not a settlement on the lines proposed in the Question make us all safer? It is in substance that advocated by the Opposition and by responsible American opinion as expressed by such people as George F. Kennan and Walter Lippmann,

  1147
  and as it is close enough to the proposals of the Soviet Union, would it not be worth while attempting to reach agreement by negotiation?
  Mr. Lloyd: I disagree with almost everything the hon. Member has said. I think the way to preserve the peace is to maintain our alliances and not to wind them up. I think the way to achieve the reunification of Germany is to seek to keep the Soviet Union to their word given in the high-level talks in 1955. As for the question of armaments, I think we should press on with the proposals which were endorsed by 57 countries of the United Nations.
  Mr. Bevan: Leaving aside for a moment the question of treaties and alliances, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think the time has come for a new diplomatic initiative to be taken? Are we to drift along towards what may be irretrievable disaster? Is no new diplomatic initiative contemplated by the Government?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think the question of the timing of any new initiative is one which must rest with the Government, and I should not have thought the present moment was one for putting forward the suggestion on the lines of the hon. Member, which is almost identical with the suggestion of the Soviet Union, and which do not think would lead to security or peace.
  Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why the time is not opportune for taking a diplomatic initiative? Are we now to wait until we have some new technical achievement to set against the Sputniks? Are we to go on having this ridiculous race, each trying to get his nose ahead of the other? At what point will it be timely to take a new diplomatic initiative?
  Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman has not followed my supplementary answer. I said I did not think it was time to take a diplomatic initiative on the lines suggested by the hon. Member because I did not think it would lead to peace. I think one of the essences of this matter is some agreement with regard to disarmament. We have put forward certain proposals for a partial agreement, which have been endorsed by 57 countries. I should have thought
  1148
  that the Opposition would have at least given some support to that position, because I think if we can get a partial agreement on those lines we shall have done something to produce an atmosphere in which further negotiations may be appropriate.
  Mr. Bevan: I apologise for following this up, but it is a very, very serious matter indeed. We on this side of the House have said on more than one occasion—in a recent debate we said it again—that in our opinion a political settlement should be pursued independently of discussions about disarmament. While I do not dissent from some of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, may I ask him why should we have to wait for agreement about disarmament before putting forward proposals about a political settlement, because it seems to us that both can be pursued separately, one from the other?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not contest that position. What I think does not help is this: immediately we have put forward a serious proposition and the Soviet says "No," at once pressure is put on us to put forward something new and to abandon the position we have taken up. As to the German question, I made a speech at the United Nations in which I set down certain conditions in which, we believe, there might be a settlement of the German question. Just because the Soviet Union says "No", I do not think it right or that it adds to security for us at once to abandon our position.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the announcements of the Polish. Czechoslovak and East German Governments that they will not introduce nuclear weapons into their forces or allow the stationing of nuclear bases on their territory, unless such weapons and bases were established in West Germany, he will propose to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference in December that no nuclear bases should be stationed on German territory and the prohibition against German forces possessing nuclear weapons should be maintained.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." The answer to the second part is that there is no such prohibition.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that Germany was admitted to N.A.T.O. on condition that she did not manufacture or possess nuclear weapons? Is it not further the fact that the Polish, Czechoslovak and East German Governments have offered not to have nuclear weapons on their territories if we refrain from introducing them into Germany? Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that we shall all be much worse off if there are more nuclear weapons closer to each other on both sides than if we follow the course suggested in the Question? Does the Foreign Secretary really believe that by this means he can ever accumulate enough military power in the West to induce the Soviet Union to accept the inclusion of Germany in N.A.T.O.? Does he not see that this is a hopeless policy and should be abandoned?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member has said. I still believe in the power of the deterrent. I think that the deterrent has prevented war in the last ten years, and the fact that it is a deterrent to both sides does not affect us, because we have no intention of committing an act of aggression. [HON. MEMBERS: "Suez."] As to the question of its prohibition to German forces, the hon. Member introduced the word "manufacture" in his supplementary question, which is not, of course, in the original Question. I quite agree with the hon. Member that, under the Paris Agreements, Germany is forbidden to manufacture nuclear weapons. She is not forbidden to possess them in any circumstances. It is not forbidden for any countries of W.E.U. to possess them.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has received from the United States Government for the inclusion on the agenda of the forthcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference of proposals to establish a high degree of military unity under United States command, even without agreement on foreign policy; and if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will insist that commitments to go to war must be related to policies jointly controlled and consistent with the restrictions on the use of force imposed by the Charter of the United Nations.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir. As far as the second part of the Question is concerned, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on 28th June, 1955. The same point was made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member on 4th May. 1949.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Without delving so far into the past, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman can give an assurance that we will not be committed by the United States to go to war, except in so far as we agree on foreign policy, because otherwise we shall be shot into a war without having any say in the matter?
  Mr. Lloyd: The circumstances in which this country would go to war must be a matter of decision by Her Majesty's Government.

  ADEN (YEMEN CLAIM)
  Major Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the recent reaffirmation of Yemen's claim to sovereignty over Aden.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This matter was raised at the recent talks in London during the visit of His Royal Highness Prince Badr from 10th to 20th November. It was not possible to reconcile our points of view on this issue. Nevertheless, I believe that the friendly personal relations and good will which were established during the visit—to which His Royal Highness made an important personal contribution—may make it easier to discuss questions of mutual concern in the future.
  It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to utilise any opportunity which offers to exchange views with the Government of His Majesty the imam and to reach agreements which will remove causes of friction. We sincerely desire friendly relations with the Yemen. I intend to continue to try to secure these objectives.
  Major Wall: Whilst agreeing that we desire friendly relations with the Yemen, may I ask my right hon. and learned

  1151
  Friend to make it quite clear that, although Her Majesty's Government would agree to discussing frontier rectifications, they cannot agree to any claim of foreign sovereignty over Aden?
  Mr. Lloyd: That matter has been made absolutely clear.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RESOLUTION)
  Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken regarding the resolution of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on the regulation of the export of live horses and livestock for slaughter.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: This Resolution is at present under consideration by the Ministers' Deputies in Strasbourg. I would add that, so far as this country is concerned, legislation already exists to deal with this matter.

  EGYPT (SEQUESTRATED BRITISH PROPERTY)
  Major Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to obtain compensation for British subjects whose property has been sequestrated by the Egyptian Government.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As my hon. Friend explained in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 31st October. Her Majesty's Government are discussing in the Anglo-Egyptian financial talks in Rome the desequestration of British property in Egypt and compensation where this is due. Those talks are still in progress.
  Major Wall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the desequestration of a business where the goodwill has been lost is not of much value to the owner? Will he press for compensation rather than desequestration in these circumstances?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is precisely one of the matters that have been put to the Egyptian delegation.

  UNITED STATES BASES, UNITED KINGDOM (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what agreement exists between this country and the United States of America regarding the launching of hydrogen bombs from United States air bases in British territory without prior consultation, in view of the fact that the United States air force keep aircraft armed with such bombs in the air throughout the 24 hours.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Arrangements for the use of the bases were confirmed in 1952 when the then Prime Minister visited Washington, and it was agreed that the use of the bases in an emergency would be a matter for the joint decision of the two Governments. Circumstances necessitating the delivery of nuclear weapons from the bases would clearly constitute such an emergency.
  Mr. Allaun: Yes, but would there be time for consultation? Secondly, is it not a fact that though General Powers announced on 12th November that loaded nuclear planes had been in the air since 1st October, such planes, unknown to the British public, have been in the air for 22 months, as Roscoe Drummond showed in the New York Herald-Tribune on 26th January? Why was this terribly dangerous arrangement and this situation concealed from the British public?
  Mr. Lloyd: As to the question of consultation, which is the phrase used in the Question, I repeat that it is not a question of consultation; it is a question of joint decision. Therefore, the bases could not be used in those circumstances unless Her Majesty's Government had decided that they should be used. As to the second part of the supplementary question, which I do not think arises strictly out of the Question, the hon. Member referred to a dangerous state of affairs, but I can assure the House that if an aeroplane carrying a nuclear weapon were to crash there would be no danger of a nuclear explosion.
  Mr. Bevan: Do I understand that American planes which are on this patrol duty from British bases carry hydrogen nuclear bombs? Do they in this 24-hour patrol actually carry the bombs?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) was referring to a statement by some United States general. I should prefer to examine that statement myself to see its precise terms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not disputing it for a moment. It may very well he so. I have not challenged the accuracy of it. The point I made is a reasonable one—because there may be some public apprehension from the safety point of view—that if there is an accident in these circumstances there is no danger of nuclear weapons exploding.
  Mr. Bevan: I am asking a different question entirely. This is a very serious matter. I understand from the Foreign Secretary's statement that the question as to whether hydrogen bombs would be used against an enemy would be a matter for joint decision between the United States Government and ourselves in respect of our bases. What I am asking now is whether, in fact, American planes which take off from British bases on patrol duty are armed with these bombs at the present time.
  Mr. Lloyd: My right lion. Friend the Minister of Defence dealt with this matter. I should think that what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) says is true—that these aeroplanes do carry them; but it is a matter for the United States Strategic Command.
  Mr. Bevan: So we understand the situation to be this—that the planes set off from British bases with hydrogen bombs on board at the moment and whether the bomb is dropped from one of these planes is a matter for joint decision by the British and American Governments. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why it is necessary on patrol duties that these bombs should be on these planes?
  Mr. Lloyd: I would have thought that if these aeroplanes were on patrol duty, which would denote a certain state of readiness, it was absolutely right that they should be fully armed.
  Mr. Elliot: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if it would not be well, before right hon. Gentlemen put these questions, that they should acquaint themselves with the terms of the answer given by General Powers? As one who heard that answer, may I point out that
  1154
  he said the main deterrent air fleets carrying these bombs were based in the United States and not in this country?
  Mr. Bevan: In my supplementary questions I was not dealing with the original statement. I was attempting to elicit information from the Foreign Secretary. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, arising out of the last supplementary question, whether in fact these American planes on patrol duty from British bases have the hydrogen bomb on board?
  Mr. Lloyd: I said I was prepared to assume that they had for the purpose of answering this Question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. When I said I would like to examine what the American general had said, and to see his statement, there was a derisory chorus from the other side. I had not in mind exactly what the general said, but I say again that it would not seem to me in any way contrary to the spirit of our undertakings—I would not see any difference whether any American aeroplanes of the Strategic Air Command are flying from American or British bases in a state of readiness.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I hope we shall not debate every Question. It is very hard on hon. Members with later Questions on the Paper.
  Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  PALESTINE (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)
  Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the plan laid down in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations in May, 1947, for the future Government of Palestine still represents the aims and policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the United Nations General Assembly's Resolution of 29th November, 1947, which was the substantive Resolution on the United Nations plan for the partition of Palestine: The

  1155
  United Kingdom abstained on this Resolution. Her Majesty's Government's aims and policy on the Palestine question have been frequently stated, most recently in my speech in this House on 8th November.
  Mr. Peyton: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what Her Majesty's Government intend to do now? This problem has been going on for far too long. Would he not agree that, except upon some basis such as that contained in the 1947 Resolution of the United Nations, there is no hope of any measure of justice for the Arabs? Would he not also agree that, unless there is a solution soon, this problem which is now intractable will become far more serious and more grave, and that both justice and self-interest demand early action?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I would not disagree with anything my hon. Friend has said. We have frequently stated—everybody in this House has stated—that this state of affairs has continued for far too long, and we have on numerous occasions done our very best to try to find a solution. I would also add that we think some consideration must be given to the November, 1947, Resolution when we are dealing with this matter.

  BRUSSELS EXHIBITION
  Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that the full scope of British science, technology, trade and industry is adequately shown at the Brussels Universal Exhibition to be held next year.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: British science and technology are being given considerable prominence in the British Government pavilion which is being organised by the Central Office of Information on the Foreign Office's behalf. Her Majesty's Government will also be contributing a number of exhibits to the International Palace of Science. British trade and industry is organising its own representation through the Federation of British Industries and will be displaying many of the latest technological developments.
  Mr. Palmer: Whilst appreciating the considerable efforts being made by British manufacturers privately, is it not a fact that unless the resources of the State
  1156
  are put behind the British part of the Exhibition, our representation will not be fair to the industrial resources of this country?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think there is any danger of that. Her Majesty's Government have contributed no less than £400,000 already to the British part of the Exhibition, and I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it is worthy of industry in this country.

  UNITED NATIONS (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND)
  Mr. Mossasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has sent to United Kingdom representatives in the General Assembly of the United Nations on the question of the special United Nations fund for economic development.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to reveal the instructions sent to United Kingdom delegations, but I can tell the hon. Member that our general attitude on this question remains unchanged.
  Mr. Moss: Can the Minister give us some more information on this important matter? There is no need for secrecy. Can he say whether he will support the recent American proposal to expand the Technical Aid Programme up to 100 million dollars and include in it a special project fund? Is that regarded by the right hon. Gentleman as a substitute for S.U.N.F.E.D.?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It may become a substitute for S.U.N.F.E.D., but this proposal of the United States Government has only just been tabled in the committee and it is under discussion at the moment. Various amendments are already being put down to that resolution, and I do not think that at this stage I can tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what will be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government toward this topic.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: May I ask the Minister of State this question? Can we not say that we are supporting the American proposal and that we will treble our contribution to technical assistance as the Americans propose to do?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Not at this stage.
  Mr. Bevan: Why not? Why cannot we do so? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why we cannot say so? We on this side of the House at least think it undesirable that we should not attempt now to match the initiative coming from other parts of the world about technical development, and why cannot we ourselves on this occasion say that we respond to the American initiative?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Frankly, I think this country does match the initiative coming from other parts of the world. It does on all those matters.
  Mr. Bevan: From India, for example?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In many of these international organisations we pay our full share. In many we pay more than our full share. When we are given a new proposal it is only reasonable that we should be given some time to examine it—not very much time, but some—because we are now asked to commit Her Majesty's Government to large new expenditure and, as I said, we contribute very substantially to all these organisations.

  DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE (VERBATIM RECORDS)
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he intends to lay the verbatim records of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee before Parliament as a Command Paper.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Her Majesty's Government have decided not to print the verbatim records of the 1957 Session of the Sub-Committee, but a Command Paper containing the two Reports of the Sub-Committee and a summary of proceedings will be laid shortly. Eight sets of the verbatim records have been placed in the Library of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have also received a set for their own use.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Since the Foreign Secretary this afternon has appealed for support for the Western Governments' proposals, is it not desirable that hon. Members and the Press should be able to understand the proposals, which they certainly cannot do unless the minutes are readily available?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understand the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, but he will appreciate that on this occasion the discussions went on for five and a half months. The printing of the verbatim record would cost something like £4,000. I think that those who have a detailed interest in this subject can be served by receiving copies of the verbatim record which is already printed by the United Nations. Incidentally, we pay our contribution to the printing of that verbatim record. In addition, as I have said, there are eight copies available in the Library, and we have a certain number of other copies which will be available to anyone who takes a particular interest in this subject.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not desirable that all hon. Members should be able to take a detailed interest, and is £4,000 really of significance in respect of disarmament when our armaments bill is £1,500 million a year?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: All hon. Members who take a detailed interest in this subject can have the verbatim records available to them.

  ARGENTINE (COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS)
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far Great Britain's signing of the Paris Club Agreement with the Argentine Government is contingent on proper compensation being paid to the Primitiva Gas Company.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: On 25th November, agreements for the consolidation of Argentina's debt to her major creditors (including the United Kingdom) and for the formal inauguration of the Argentine Multilateral Trade and Payments System were signed in Buenos Aires. On the same day a decree was published authorising the Argentine Government to give effect to the terms of the agreement reached with the Primitiva Gas Company. I am sure that the House will welcome the conclusion of these agreements, which should be to the advantage of all concerned, and also the fact that the Primitiva case has at last been settled.
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position concerning the claim

  1159
  before the Argentine courts for compensation for the British shareholders of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways; and whether he will assure the House that the settlement of the claims of the Primitiva shareholders and the signing of the Paris Club Agreement will in no way prejudice Her Majesty's Government's efforts to obtain compensation for the Anglo-Argentine Tramways shareholders.
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The company's case is still being considered by the Argentine courts, and I understand that some progress has been made. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."
  Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British shareholders in this company recently made an appeal for funds to fight the matter to a finish, and they have been so successful that they have now decided to continue? In view of that fact, and as my right hon. Friend has just said that the case is going well in the courts, can he assure us that, since the Primitiva case is out of the way, once the Anglo-Argentine Tramways case has gone through the courts and been settled the British Government will do everything in their power to help the shareholders in the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company and do all in their power to get the matter settled, if necessary, out of court?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I did not go so far as to say that the case was going well in the courts. I said it was making progress in the courts. My hon. Friend is right in saying that Her Majesty's Government cannot take any action until the matter comes out of the courts again. When that happens, we will most certainly do all we can to help.

BRITISH HONDURAS (DELEGATION)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. BERESFORD CRADDOCK: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the discussions with the delegation from British Honduras.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 83.
1160
The delegation, which had come from British Honduras to discuss the Colony's financial needs and the question of future constitutional advance, had begun official discussions. Early in their visit the four unofficial delegates were invited to a luncheon by the Guatemalan Minister in London. A plan was then put forward which involved severing the connection of British Honduras with the British Crown and associating it in some form with the Guatemalan Republic. When, ten days later, I asked the delegation about this lunch, it emerged that Mr. Price was still considering this most improper offer and had not, so he told me, even then made up his mind.
In the course of my meetings with the delegation it also came out that in addition to this incident Mr. Price had been engaged in discussions on his own with the Guatemalan Minister in London. These private discussions he attempted to conceal not only from the Governor and myself, but also from at least two of his three unofficial colleagues. With such a lack of good faith on Mr. Price's part, I have felt it impossible to continue negotiations with him. I have told him so this morning. Though I would gladly have continued discussions with the rest of the delegation, I felt, and the Governor agreed, that the right thing was for the whole delegation to return to British Honduras and deal with the consequences of this breakdown in the negotiations.
I look forward to a resumption of the talks with a reconstituted delegation as soon as possible in an atmosphere of mutual trust in which the attitude of Her Majesty's Government will be unaffected by this unhappy episode.
Mr. Beresford Craddock: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and say that I find the information which he has given rather disturbing? May I ask him two short questions? First, can he say how many of the delegates took part, or was there only one who took part, in these private discussions? Secondly—I think he will agree that this is much more important—how does this affect the future financial position of British Honduras? I am led to believe that British Honduras is framing its Budget proposals. Can my right hon. Friend say whether he can reach a decision about this matter before those Budget proposals are finalised?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All the delegates lunched with the Guatemalan Minister, but this was not one of the private meetings to which I referred in my Answer.
I shall be agreeing a provisional figure to enable the administration of the Colony to continue for what I hope will be the short interval before a delegation can return to continue the talks with me.
Mr. Creech Jones: I am sure that we all deplore the conduct of Mr. Price. Has any protest been made to the Guatemalan Government about this intrigue? It is common knowledge to the House that the British Government have, over a number of years, pressed the Guatemalan Government to take their case to the International Court at The Hague if they feel that they have any claim to British Honduras, and this they have consistently refused to do.
May I ask what the Secretary of State means by "a reconstituted delegation," and whether he will, in any case, press on with the development needs of British Honduras and also assist the Colony on the financial side?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The attitude of the British Government has always been made clearly known to the Government of the Guatemalan Republic, but any detailed questions about the conduct of the Minister or anything else should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
With regard to what I meant by a "reconstituted delegation," that will have to be for the Governor and the Executive Council to discuss when the Governor returns home, as he will do tomorrow. With regard to the third part of the supplementary question, I am exceedingly anxious that we should be able to take practical steps still further to forward the economic development of a territory which, I recognise, needs it as much as anywhere else in the Commonwealth.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Are not the members of the unofficial delegation elected members? Consequently, when the right hon.
1162
Gentleman says that he will receive a "reconstituted delegation," does that mean that he will not receive Mr. Price again, as this is likely to lead to a good deal of controversy and perhaps a very serious situation in British Honduras?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot promise an absence of controversy, but I ant certain that I have taken the only proper line. Of the delegation, three members were elected members and one was a nominated member. As to who would constitute any future delegation, that must, as I have said, be left to the Governor and the Executive Council to decide.
Mr. Nicholson: I wish to address a question to the Foreign Secretary. Has he informed the Guatemalan Government that the Minister in London is no longer persona grata?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member ought to give notice of that question.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Disabled Persons (Welfare, Training and Employment)
  Mr. Edward Evans: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, I shall call attention to the need for greater facilities for the welfare, training and employment of disabled persons, and move a Resolution.
  Tanganyika
  Mr. Page: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, I shall call attention to developments in Tanganyika, and move a Resolution.
  European Free Trade Area
  Mr. MacColl: I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, he will call attention to the effect of the proposed Free Trade Area in Europe, and move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ISLE OF MAN BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.40 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This short Bill puts a seal on the aspirations of the Manx people, which they have steadily and patiently pursued for many hundreds of years, to be given greater freedom to manage their own affairs and, in particular, to control their own revenues. It is a particular pleasure to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to be associated with the Bill, since his father was a Lieutenant-Governor of the Isle of Man and he himself has very close and dear ties with the island. My right hon. Friend asked me to apologise to the House for not being here at the moment. He is away on official Home Office business, but certainly hopes to be present later in the debate.
  Many centuries ago, the Isle of Man was colonised by Norse settlers. It was an independent kingdom and it was not until nearly the sixteenth century that the English were treated otherwise than as aliens in the island and until then, they had to pay a fee to settle there. In due course, it passed by conquest to the Scots and then to the English, and from the early fifteenth century the island was, as the House knows, ruled by the Earls of Derby, first as kings and later as lords of Man.
  Even in those early days, Customs Duties played an important part in the affairs of the island. Increasing mischief was caused by the growth of smuggling between the island and the mainland—and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie), with his territorial interest, appreciates that point. In 1765, the British Government bought out the Duke of Atholl, to whom the island had by then passed in inheritance, and, in effect, took over control of the insular government. From then on, the island's revenues accrued to the Exchequer and Britain assumed complete responsibility for the government of the island, which is exercised through the Lieutenant-Governor.
  1164
  However, the islanders never accepted as final the loss of their former independence and the island's constitutional history ever since then has reflected their continuing efforts to regain it. One hundred years passed before the first major step in that direction was taken with the passage of the Isle of Man Customs, Harbours, and Public Purposes Act, 1866. In 1887, Tynwald was empowered to alter Customs Duties with temporary effect, subject to confirmation by Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Hon. Members will remember that the Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1955, substituted confirmation by Order in Council.
  Apart from that and other minor changes relating to Customs, the statutory framework established by the 1866 Act has remained unaltered to this day, but there is, however, quite a sharp difference between the theory and the practice of the relationship of the two governments. In theory, the sole executive authority in the Isle of Man is the Lieutenant-Governor. He is appointed by the Crown and the island's revenues are controlled by the Treasury. In practice, the present century has seen an increasing degree of power being placed in the hands of Tynwald.
  The mere repeal of the Acts which I have mentioned, the 1866 Act and the 1887 Act, would have left many unresolved questions. Happily, those have been resolved in two agreements which have recently been laid before the House, agreements between Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. The purpose of the Bill is to implement the agreements and thus to give to the Isle of Man, in form as well as in substance, the control over their own affairs which the islanders have long sought and have for some time to a great extent enjoyed.
  The first thing the Bill does is to repeal the Act of 1866 and, by doing that, remove the present Treasury control over the expenditure by the island of its Customs revenues, leaving it free to manage its own finances. Secondly, it hands over control of customs matters to Tynwald and, thirdly, by removing Treasury control and by the repeal of various other Statutes, which are set out in the Schedule, the Bill leaves the way clear for Tynwald itself to legislate on various matters, such as loans and

  1165
  harbours. I understand that it is Tynwald's intention to enact as a complementary Measure a Finance Bill which is likely to come into operation at the same time as this Bill, and which will provide for the control of the island's finances in future.
  The next thing the Bill does, by the repeal of the Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1887, and the Act of 1955, is to leave the island Government free to fix its Customs Duties and tariffs and other similar charges on goods. I understand that a Bill will be introduced in Tynwald at an early date for that purpose. As hon. Members will recollect, in the agreements which were laid before Parliament, the island agreed to keep its main duties in line with those of the United Kingdom and not to introduce fresh differences in Its duties without first consulting the United Kingdom Government. The existing duties will remain in force until altered by Tynwald—I think that the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has just asked to which Government I was referring; it was Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire): I was wondering whether the Isle of Man would be able to compete with other seaside resorts by having cheap whisky and cheap tobacco.
  Mr. Simon: Increasing disparity in any duties or taxes will first have to be discussed with United Kingdom Government.
  The present arrangements for the collection of Customs Duties in the island by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will also continue in operation undisturbed and, for the time being, at any rate, the present body of United Kingdom law relating to the machinery of Customs administration in the island will remain in force. That is Clause 1.
  Clause 2 relates to what is known as the Common Purse arrangements. It has been the practice, blessed by a provision of the Customs (Isle of Man) Tariff Act, 1874, to allow duty-paid goods to move between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man without further payment of duty where the rates are equal. That practice was later extended to include Purchase Tax where Purchase Tax was equal in
  1166
  the two places. To compensate the island for the loss of Customs revenue thus entailed, it became the practice to allocate to the Manx Exchequer the appropriate proportion of the total revenue from equal duties collected both here and in the island. The effect of Clause 2 is to provide specifically for the continuance of that long-standing practice.
  Mention of the Common Purse leads me to the Isle of Man's annual contribution to the United Kingdom Exchequer, which nowadays bears a direct relation to the Common Purse receipts. Section 7 of the 1866 Act required £10,000 to be paid annually into the Exchequer out of he Isle of Man Customs Duties. As hon. Members will be aware, the Isle of Man supplemented that sum during the war by making other sums available to the Exchequer.
  In 1950, Tynwald resolved to pay, instead of the original £10,000 a year, an annual contribution of 5 per cent. of the Common Purse receipts. In round figures, that is about £100,000 a year. That increased contribution could not legally be paid at the time until the enactment of Section 2 of the 1955 Act, which enabled the island to pay to the United Kingdom out of the Isle of Man customs revenue a sum greater than £10,000 a year. As I have said, it was based thereafter on 5 per cent., equal to about £100,000 a year and operated retrospectively to 1950.
  The island's present contribution rests on Tynwald's decision to pay an annual 5 per cent. of the Common Purse receipts and not on any imperial legislation. The island has agreed to continue to make a contribution each year, and has made such provision in an Act of Tynwald. The agreement is the second of the two that was laid before the House.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Do I understand that Tynwald have actually passed the legislation confirming that they will in future pay 5 per cent. of the Common Purse?
  Mr. Simon: The position, as I understand, is that Tynwald have already, in 1950, under an Act of Tynwald, agreed to pay 5 per cent. I do not think that they have passed fresh legislation; nor should I have thought that it was necessary for them to do so—but perhaps the

  1167
  right hon. Member will ask me that question again in his speech, and I will try to ascertain whether what I have told the House is correct.
  It follows from what I have said that the provisiosn of the Imperial Acts of 1866 and 1955 are no longer necessary and are not being retained under the Bill. The Bill repeals a number of United Kingdom statutes relating to loans and to mines and quarries in the island. Future legislation in regard to those matters will be a matter for Tynwald. Certain minor provisions relating to loans are to be retained because they achieve objects which would be beyond the scope of insular legislation.
  Harbours are also to become a subject for the legislative control of Tynwald, but since the insular legislation on this subject is not yet ready. Tynwald are empowered by the Bill to repeal, in due course, the existing United Kingdom legislation on harbours in the Isle of Man. Meanwhile, those remain in operation. The Bill also repeals the Isle of Man (Officers) Acts of 1876 and 1882, which are now obsolete.
  The principle behind the Bill is that Her Majesty's Government believe that the time has come to give formal recognition to the desire of the people of the Isle of Man to achieve greater financial autonomy. The Bill will not mean the end of the close association between the United Kingdom and the island, or any substantial change in the present practice which I have described to the House. Co-operation between the two Governments on matters of common interest will continue. The introduction of the Bill has been warmly welcomed in the island, and two weeks ago Tynwald passed a resolution unanimously approving the proposals which are to be given effect to in the Bill if the House should pass it.
  The reforms which in inaugurates are being implemented in an atmosphere of good will, and that provides the best insurance of a satisfactory future relationship between the United Kingdom and the island. I therefore commend the Bill to the House as a measure of reform which, I trust, will be as welcome to all those in the United Kingdom who have at heart the interests of the Isle of Man as it is welcome to the Government and people of the island.
  3.53 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Like the rest of the House, I was fascinated by the account which the Joint Under-Secretary gave of the history of this island. It is certainly a small place. I believe that its population is about 54,000, which is less than any county council area in England except for three or four—Rutland, City of London, the Soke of Peterborough and, perhaps, another.
  The Bill grants to such a tiny population rather considerable powers, which no United Kingdom county council, whatever its size or population, has so far thought fit to ask for. Nevertheless, I will say, at the outset, that we shall not oppose the Bill, although I want to comment upon one or two things which the hon. and learned Member touched upon and put one or two questions about parts of the Bill which are not entirely clear to some hon. Members on this side.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, Tynwald is a very ancient assembly. I believe that that part of it called the House of Keys claims to be one of the oldest assemblies in the world. This House is a rather ancient assembly, too, and as the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom, and if one or other of these assemblies is to have overriding authority, I should have thought that, certainly in matters of finance, it should be this Parliament. Nevertheless, as the Minister said, the Isle of Man has for many years had almost complete financial autonomy. By the Bill we shall pass to them the little authority and control remaining with us.
  I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right when he said that up to now there has been ultimate Treasury control of the Isle of Man finances. This was news to me, however, because from about 1894 or 1898 to 1955, when the last of the Measures was before us, we have continuously, year after year, passed the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, which gave legislative sanction to such changes as Tynwald had made by resolution following the introduction of the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I have always understood, though it may be that I am wrong—the hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt correct me if he speaks again—that notwithstanding the

  1169
  fact that had we not passed this legislation, the Isle of Man would still have been its own judge of what Customs Duties it should levy. Not all of them, anyway, have always marched with those which the United Kingdom Parliament has laid down. One thing that has kept the island roughly in line with ourselves has been the knowledge that if there were a wide gap between the two sets of duties it might lead to a good deal of smuggling.
  In addition to Customs Duties, the Isle of Man levies its own Income Tax and Surtax. Income Tax ranges from 2s. 3d. to 4s. 6d. in the £ and Surtax from 10d. on incomes of £2,000 and upwards to 7s. 6d. on those over £20,000. It is like the Channel Islands, where the higher rates of Income Tax and Surtax to which the United Kingdom taxpayer is now acclimatised do not apply. They are in a happy position in that they enjoy the protection which accrues to residents of the United Kingdom, besides many of the benefits, but do not have to bear the heavy burden residents in this country do.
  I suppose that if a resident of some other country could be present in the Gallery this afternoon and realise just what we are doing he would be rather surprised that this Parliament should go to the trouble to which it is going on behalf of so small an island. All down the years—certainly for the last two or three centuries—in Act after Act we have had to take note of the fact that the Isle of Man was separately governed from this country, and we had to make provision to include it in, or exclude it from very many Bills which came before this House. Sometimes I have asked myself whether all this was really worth while, whether the benefits accruing to residents in the Isle of Man were worth all the trouble, difficulty and the work caused to the Parliamentary draftsmen.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to some of the Acts of Parliament which are here being repealed. He mentioned the Customs, Harbours, and Public Purposes Act, 1866. That Act makes provision for payment to the Exchequer of £10,000 a year, and the Act of 1955, of course, raised this limit and altered the formula to enable the Isle of Man to remit 5 per cent. of the proceeds of the Common Purse Fund. If I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman aright, there is nothing in the Bill making it obligatory upon the island, to continue
  1170
  to pay us the 5 per cent. I have not the slightest doubt that Tynwald will honour its bond, but so far as I can gather from what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and from the Bill, there is nothing to ensure this in years to cone.
  It strikes me as strange that, in a matter of this kind, the British Treasury should not have seen fit to have something definite on the Statute Book to regularise the position and make the position clear for all time. It might at some time lead to difficulties when the people who made the bargain with the Treasury are no longer there. There is something to be said, in our view, at any rate, for having it embodied in legislation so that for all time both the Isle of Man and this country shall know exactly where they are.
  I assume that the Treasury has not discussed with representatives of the island what is to be done about the amount outstanding on their contribution towards the last war. As I think most hon. Gentlemen will remember, at the end of the 1914–18 war the Isle of Man made an outright gift, in, I think, two instalments, of about £750,000 in full settlement of its obligation towards the cost of that conflict. This worked out roughly at between £13 and £15 per head of the population. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what has happened about the cost of the last war? What have we received, if anything, from the Isle of Man? I believe that the Isle of Man lent us £1 million free of interest and afterwards made a free gift of half that sum.
  If the population is what I think it is, that works out at about £10 per head, not a great sum when one remembers how badly bombed most towns in this country were and how much people here suffered in loss of life and in excessive taxation.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I am following what my right hon. Friend says, and I agree to a large extent, but in trying to make a balanced judgment on the contribution made by the Isle of Man towards the cost of the last war it ought to be borne in mind that the small population of the island made a very great sacrifice in the Navy and Mercantile Marine, suffering grievous casualties quite out of proportion to the size and resources of the population.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I agree, of course, with what my hon. Friend has said and I am delighted that I have been able to give him the opportunity to say it.
  I am not denying for one moment that the Isle of Man did great service during the war. But, fortunately for them, the people of the island were not placed in a position where they suffered much from bombing, if at all. In addition, owing to the financial structure in the Isle of Man, which, in many ways, is different from that which applies in this country, the people there have not, according to my information, had to find so much per head as the people of this country have in respect of the last war. I am not blaming them for that; things just happened in that way.
  While we are dealing with this Bill, I should be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us what has happened to the £500,000 which, so far as I know, is still outstanding.
  Why is it that the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, 1872–1891, are being repealed? Those Acts, particularly the original one, are extremely useful. There is no reference in the Bill itself to any suggestion that the Isle of Man intends to re-enact the Measures as part of its own law. Does this mean that there are not any mines of that kind in the Isle of Man? What is the reason for these Acts being included in the repeal? Their provisions are extremely important.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the provisions regulate the employment of women, children and adolescents in mines, the appointment of inspectors, the payment of wages in public houses, and they make rules governing ventilation and many other things. Unless it is quite obvious that such regulations are no longer applicable, I, for one, cannot understand why that legislation, as it applies to the Isle of Man, is being repealed.
  Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us about other legislation, also? What about our own welfare legislation? I gather that the island has passed almost identical statutes, and that our National Insurance schemes, including health insurance, industrial injuries insurance, family allowance schemes and, I suppose, old-age pensions, are all worked as a unified whole, the same rules, contributions and benefits applying there, as in
  1172
  Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom.
  Will that legislation continue? I understand that the Isle of Man has a Board of Social Services which controls these schemes. Will the United Kingdom Parliament have any control over them in the Isle of Man, or are they to be handed over to the Tynwald to do exactly as they wish? I have not the slightest doubt that they will continue this legislation, but are any safeguards being set up to prevent changes being made? The Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom and we ought to know the position in order to protect people who might go to live there.
  What sort of hospital accommodation is there there? I understand that when citizens of the United Kingdom go there they carry with them all the benefits that have accrued to them under the National Health Service. Are there regulations to ensure the same standards in both places? I have not the slightest doubt that such standards are in being in the island, but before we part with the Bill we ought to know what the position is.
  What about post offices and telephones? Has the Isle of Man its own Acts of Parliament dealing with these services, or does the legislation, like liability for National Service, cover both the island and this country? I imagine that the legislation covers both. If that is so, perhaps we might have an assurance from the Minister and learn where the dividing line is.
  We welcome the Bill. It is part of the way of life of this country to allow a small island of this kind to continue to enjoy its ancient liberties and in accord with the wishes and desires of the people of this country as it is of those who live there.
  4.12 p.m.
  Mr. Mackie: As representing two counties which are now merged into one constituency on the mainland of Scotland and nearest to the Isle of Man, it gives me great pleasure to say something in support of the Bill.
  I no longer have to declare a personal interest or any interest on behalf of my constituency in regard to what used to be called "the fair trade," which will be remembered by hon. Members who have read Sir Walter Scott's great romance "Guy Mannering" and the works of

  1173
  S. R. Crockett as well. Smuggling between the Scottish mainland and the Isle of Man no longer exists. Many years have passed since there was any smuggling. Every day, from my home, when atmospheric conditions permit, I can see that island looking particularly beautiful, especially against the westering sun. Most hon. Members will realise that I have a sentimental interest in the Isle of Man, and, therefore, a great interest in any legislation which is presented in this House relating thereto.
  The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said that we were doing more for the Isle of Man in this small Bill than had ever been attempted for any English county. He said nothing to suggest that the Opposition was inimical to the principle underlying the Bill; quite the opposite. I am delighted to think that that is the case. The smallness of the island should not prevent anyone with the historical knowledge and keen intellectual ability of the right hon. Gentleman saying that the island has a very particular position inside the framework of the British Commonwealth and of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Ede: Is the Isle of Man in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Mackie: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) heard me say "British Commonwealth" and then "the United Kingdom." By using both those phrases I tried to ensure that I was right.
  Mr. William Ross: In view of the hon. Gentleman's favourable comment on the Bill, may I ask whether he has inquired whether or not there is any local legislation in the Isle of Man inimical to Scotland?
  Mr. Mackie: I am sure there is not, but I am very ready to give way to the hon. Gentleman again, so that we may have an opportunity of hearing him give us the benefit of his knowledge on this matter.
  I was about to say that the Isle of Man is the seat of a bishopric. I mention that fact not because I have any great love for bishops, especially if there is any possibility of the extension of the episcopate to Scotland. I mention it as an historic fact and to show the very peculiar position that this island has for so long enjoyed. The Isle of Man has never had
  1174
  Parliamentary representation at Westminster. That fact is worth bearing in mind, in view of the possibility that in two or three years—I hope it is not a probability—we may have to consider the question of having representatives here from another island. I say that only in passing.
  The right hon. Member for Colne Valley alluded to the antiquity of Tynwald and made comparisons between the age of this mother Parliament at Westminster and Tynwald. If I had looked up the facts in the Library I dare say I should have found that Tynwald was in existence even before Simon de Montfort called the Parliament on which this ancient assembly is still modelled.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State very rightly and properly alluded to the feelings of the proud little Manx people, with their long history. I am glad that the Bill will give effect to the desires which they have so long entertained and that it does nothing inimical to the interests of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister who replies to the debate will clear away any doubt lingering in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends on that point.
  It gives me very great pleasure to support this small Bill. I am delighted that it is not to receive any opposition on its Second Reading. I hope it will speedily pass through Committee, secure its Third Reading and be placed without delay on the Statute Book.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Glover: I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two. Coming from the north-west of England, where the Isle of Man has a particularly warm place in our hearts, all I want to do is to say how warmly I welcome the Bill. During the summer, I had the privilege of going over Tynwald and the House of Keys and seeing something of the administration in the Isle of Man. I am perfectly certain that although there may be only 54,000 people in the island, many of our county councils might examine its administration and learn a lesson in efficiency.
  The Isle of Man is an old and ancient kingdom with close connections with Lancashire, and, I might mention, with Argyll.
  Mr. Mackie: The Atholl family, in Scotland.
  Mr. Glover: Many people from the North-West, especially Lancashire and Cheshire, have started their married life in the Isle of Man. It is not an island in the Irish Sea divorced and remote from England and Scotland: it is part of our common heritage. It adds a great deal to the colour of our national life to have the slight anachronisms of different taxation and other structures in the Isle of Man and in the other islands around our coast such as Jersey and Guernsey. It all leads to a diversity in our life.
  When one thinks of the ancient traditions and sees how well the islanders have managed their affairs, it is with the warmest wishes that I hope the House, as I know it will, will give the Bill a Second Reading and show the people in the Isle of Man the warm affection that we have in our hearts for them.
  4.22 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I thought it might be convenient if I answered the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall).
  I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary was able to move the Second Reading of the Bill. He was doing so on my behalf as I, unfortunately, had a public engagement some distance from here in connection with my Home Office duties. I wish simply to intervene to support his words and to say what importance the Government attach to this stage in the constitutional development of the Isle of Man. Through many centuries, the islanders have looked forward to developments and following upon, notably, the Act of 1866, this Measure is an important one, although its scope is a good deal in the financial sphere.
  The right hon. Member asked, in particular, what the island had contributed to us during the war, with a view, I think, to stressing the generosity of the islanders. I can give him the figures. En 1938 Tynwald voted £100,000 as a contribution to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of rearmament. Payment was spread over five years. Subsequently, the island made a number of other contributions to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of the war
  1176
  and the total amount of all these contributions was no less than £1,850,000. That is the measure of our debt to the island and the gratitude that we owe to her.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: It amounts to almost two-thirds of a year's revenue by Tynwald, which is really very good.
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It is spread over a period, but does amount to that sum.
  The island almost made an interest-free loan of £500,000 to His Majesty's Government in 1944 and this loan is still outstanding. That is the information which I have been able to derive which. I think, illustrates the generosity of the islanders.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred also to his anxiety lest the mines and quarries legislation which is enshrined in Imperial Statutes should no longer apply to the Isle of Man and he drew attention to the unhappiness which might thereby ensue due to these powers and provisions not being available in the island. I would reassure him at once by saying that Tynwald have passed legislation on the same matters and that, therefore, his anxiety can be, I hope, allayed and he can rest in peace that these matters are dealt with by island legislation.
  Towards the conclusion of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to doubt whether the social conditions in the island would be satisfactory in the absence, again, of Imperial legislation. The answer is that there is local provision for the social facilities in the island, as I know from my own experience. The right hon. Gentleman's anxieties on that score may also be allayed in that the situation on the island is comparable to what we in our wisdom regard as suitable for the inhabitants of the mainland.
  There are certain aspects of Imperial legislation connected with the Post Office, to which the right hon. Gentleman also made allusion, which remain in existence and there are certain provisions concerning, for example, civil aviation, which rather transcend the frontiers of the island and are, therefore, conceived on a broader canvas. The matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, however, are, I think, satisfactory from his point of view.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked several points of detail which I do not wish to answer at great length. Concerning

  1177
  Income Tax, he will find that the standard rate is 4s. 6d. in the £—Nirvana, but not quite as beautiful as the right hon. Gentleman painted. He said that there was Surtax in excess of £20,000 per annum. The answer is that Surtax is in excess of £5,000 per annum on the rates to which he drew attention. I am taking the right hon. Gentleman's own observations and relating my answers to them.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to his fear that Tynwald might alter its 5 per cent. contribution. He is, perhaps, underestimating what is affected by the Bill. It is, indeed, possible for that to happen, but we are relying on the flexibility which is available in the Bill not to inure to the disadvantage of the mainland but solely to the advantage of the island. We believe that if, in our relations with the island, we proceed in the atmosphere of good will in which the Bill has been conceived, it is better to leave the powers flexible than to make them as tight as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. His question was quite legitimate, but I am giving him the answer in the light of the drafting of the Bill.
  I am very glad that before the debate concluded I have been able to make this shunt intervention on Second Reading to illustrate the importance which any Home Secretary would attach to the future of the island. The island is one which is geographically situated in an area which was vital to us in the last war, in the middle of the North-West Approaches. Its constitutional history is probably the oldest in this part of the Northern Hemisphere and the island is one in which the administrative Government per head of the population is, I think, cheaper and perhaps more efficient than in any other civilised country.
  That in itself is something to which even our Administration here might turn with a look of admiration. This is a Bill about an island which is a favourite holiday haunt of many of our fellow countrymen and citizens. I trust, therefore, that the House will pass the Bill in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman and those on this side have already approached it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bryan.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED)
  4.28 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): I beg to move,
  That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.
  Hon. Members are, I think, familiar with the procedure which has to be followed when we propose to improve National Assistance scales. My right hon. Friend told the House on 6th November that he had received proposals for increases from the Board and that he had accepted them and he then laid the necessary draft Regulations. It is those draft Regulations which we have now to consider. They have already been approved in another place and if they are now approved by this House the Minister will make substantive Regulations in the terms of the draft, and the National Assistance Board will then be able to proceed with the necessary action to give effect to them.
  The effect of the new Regulations is to increase as from 27th January next the amounts allowed for requirements other than rent. The principal increases are to be 5s. for a single householder and 9s. for a married couple. These improvements will bring the rates on the ordinary scale to 45s. for a single householder and 76s. for a married couple, and the special scale rates will be 65s. and 96s. The special scale, I may add, although I think most hon. Members will know this, applies to families where either the husband or wife is blind and to those who are suffering from tuberculosis and who incur loss of income in order to undergo treatment. It means that the margin of 20s. for blind and certain tuberculous applicants is maintained.
  To the sums provided—both scales, the ordinary and special scale—allowances for rent are, of course, added. On that, I should like to say a little more later. To both scales appropriate increases are being recommended for applicants in other categories and dependants, including dependent children.

  1179
  In 1948, when National Assistance was first introduced in its present form, the rate for a single householder was 24s. and the amount now proposed will represent an increase of 87.5 per cent. on that figure. The rate for a married couple was originally 40s. and the amount now proposed represents an increase of 90 per cent. For children, the percentage increase over 1948 averages again 90 per cent. During this time, may I add for the benefit of hon. Members, the Index of Retail Prices has gone up by 52 per cent.
  If we take the comparison from another date, in 1951, when there was a further increase, then for a single householder the present recommendations represent 50 per cent. increase; for a married couple, 52 per cent.; and for children, on average, 49 per cent. Since that date, the Index of Retail Prices has gone up by 281 per cent. In giving these figures I have not forgotten tobacco tokens, but even allowing for cases where tobacco tokens have been available to National Assistance recipients—and at its maximum where tobacco tokens were used by both partners of a married couple—the proposed rates still show a considerable increase both over 1948 and 1951.
  In fact, only a minority of all National Assistance applicants qualified for tobacco tokens. As the House knows, people on unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, or with no resources at all do not qualify for tokens. It may be useful if I point out that last year there were about I million retirement pensioners receiving supplementary assistance through the National Assistance Board. Of these, about four-fifths were women. It is not possible to say what proportion of people receiving National Assistance had tobacco tokens.
  It was possible in last week's debate to state this proportion for National Insurance, and then we advised the House that the figure was about half. Supposing that the figures were the same for National Assistance recipients, it would mean about half a million retirement pensioners would be affected, but I think that the proportion is likely to be smaller because of the heavy preponderance of women, which is much greater than among retirement pensioners as a whole. These women belong very
  1180
  largely to the higher age groups, in which case smoking would, I think, be fairly rare, because it was not a habit which they acquired in those days; in fact, it was one very much frowned upon.
  Of about 800,000 women retirement pensioners on National Assistance, 130,000 are over the age of 80 and 380,000 are between the ages of 70 and 80. These figures are very interesting, and I hope that hon. Members will find them useful. I think that it is not unreasonable to suggest that less than half the number of pensioners on National Assistance will be affected by the withdrawal of the tobacco tokens. Indeed, taking assistance as a whole, it seems likely that at least two people out of every three will not be affected by the withdrawal of the tokens.
  To return to the recommendations, I said that I would like to say a further word about rents. I feel that it cannot be emphasised too often that the National Assistance scale rates do not include rents. Rent is allowed as an addition, and it is my experience, which is, I am sure, also shared by other hon. Members, that this point is frequently overlooked and, therefore, leads to misunderstanding when people are talking about National Assistance scale rates.
  Rent addition is covered by the principal Regulations, so there is no need for amending regulations to say anything about rents when scales for requirements other than rents are being considered in the way that we are doing today. My right hon. Friend explained in Answer to a Question in the House on 6th May this year that the Board has all the powers it needs to deal adequately with rent increases.
  The Board's policy is to meet rent in full unless accommodation is shared by someone not on assistance and well able to pay a share of the rent, or the rent is excessive. For example, a married couple living alone and paying rent at 15s. a week would have as income as from 27th January next at least £4 11s. a week, that is, 76s. plus 15s., and it may be larger if they have special needs, because the increase in basic rates will not affect the discretionary powers of the Board's officers to adjust allowances to meet special circumstances.
  This discretionary power is a most valuable and important feature of assistance, and is given according to individual

  1181
  need. A great deal of use is made of the discretionary powers. An inquiry conducted by the Board towards the end of last year showed that two out of every five allowances then being paid contained additions for such things as extra nourishment, domestic help, and laundry charges. For retirement pensioners alone, the figure was even higher, nearly three out of every five.
  There was a suggestion, when amending Regulations were being debated in the House in December, 1955, that the Board might be tightening up a bit in the use of its discretionary powers. I should like to anticipate any suggestion of that kind today by assuring the House that the reverse is the case. The figures show that these powers were used more freely in 1956 than ever before.
  In 1955, allowances in payment contained about 642,000 discretionary additions, an average amount of 5s. 7d., involving expenditure of nearly £9,400,000 in that year. The corresponding figures for 1956, which is the latest available date, were 748,000 allowances, averaging 6s. each, and costing around £11,600,000 a year.
  For example, of the total load in November, 1951, the proportion then receiving discretionary allowances was 34 per cent.; of the total load in December, 1955, on the figures which I have just given, the proportion receiving discretionary allowances was 40 per cent.; and of the total load in December, 1956, the proportion was 45 per cent. This will be confirmation, if there is any doubt, of the extent to which the Board uses these powers.
  Paragraph 6 of the Board's Explanatory Memorandum on these draft Regulations refers to certain cases which cannot be dealt with on the basic rates now proposed. People living in accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948, are given such allowance as enables them to pay the minimum charge prescribed by the Minister of Health—or, in Scotland, by the Secretary of State—and to keep a weekly sum similarly prescribed as being necessary for personal requirements. That sum, which is usually referred to as the "pocket money" allowance, is at present 7s. 6d., and I understand that the Health Ministers are proposing to introduce amending regulations to increase this.
  1182
  In the case of people paying an inclusive sum for board and lodgings, the scale rate, which is for requirements other than rent, is not appropriate. The Board's officers, therefore, use their discretion to grant assistance at a rate which will leave a reasonable amount for other expenses I understand that, in practice, a grant made to meet board and lodging expenses, provided that it is not an extravagant charge, and to leave some extra for personal expenses, including clothing. This additional amount is now usually 12s. but, again, I understand that the Board proposes to increase it to 15s.
  People in hospital are maintained free. They have no need for board and lodging allowance, but may need pocket money. The Board fixes that at 7s. 6d., but proposes that it should be increased to 10s. If a patient has outside commitments, as some may, either for keeping up the rent or helping dependents, it is reasonable that the Board should meet those expenses, and it does so.
  This will be the sixth increase in National Assistance basic rates since they were first introduced in 1948. It will not only make good the loss caused by price changes since the last increase, but will also allow for the withdrawal of the tobacco token concession though, as I have said, that applies only to a minority of the people on assistance. Even for this minority, the increase proposed will provide an allowance which has an appreciably higher value, in real terms, than that provided by the 1948 rates. For all the others, the improved value must, of course, be correspondingly greater.
  All this is evidence, if evidence were needed, of the way the Board discharges the duty put upon it, of the growth of its experience and of the great humanity that it has brought to its task, as, I think, all hon. Members will readily acknowledge.
  4.42 p.m.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has reminded the House that we are working to a time-table. As the House knows, we on this side certainly want that timetable to be adhered to. We are glad that on this occasion it is proposed that the changed Assistance allowances will become payable at the same time as the increased benefits which the House approved last week. Therefore, on this

  1183
  side, we shall not do anything to delay the passing into law of the Regulations which the hon. Lady has just moved. We hope, however, that we can have, and that many hon. Members will join in, a discussion this afternoon about the welfare of the people with whom we are concerned.
  We are discussing the welfare of 2¼ million of our fellow subjects. Indeed, although that is the estimate given by the National Assistance Board in its Report for the year 1956, I believe that the figure is now slightly higher. However, at least 2¼ million people—half the population of the administrative County of London, and perhaps twice the population of Birmingham—are today living, to some extent, on National Assistance.
  That represents a problem deserving the most serious attention of Parliament and of the nation. The Press sometimes refers to some of our debates here as being dull, but those debates are not an occasion for any kind of Parliamentary entertainment, and this is surely an occasion when we might well ask the Press, and public opinion generally, to pay a little more attention to our proceedings than they sometimes do nowadays. As a legislative assembly we are here to do a serious job, and not to entertain Press sketch writers.
  Today's discussion is particularly serious. We are here to ask whether we are completely satisfied with the provision the nation is making for one in 22 of the population. During 1956, the total expenditure on National Assistance was £120,780,000. The total number of allowances current at the end of 1956 was 1,656,000, and for the last month for which we have any figures it was 1,667,000. In the former figure there were included 329,000 children under 16 years of age. Those were the figures at the end of 1956, and, as I say, they are slightly larger today.
  It is inevitable, I think, that in the course of our remarks I and other hon. Members will have to use a great many figures. Responsible legislators are bound to look at the overall dimensions of the problem; to refer to the numbers of people involved, to the purchasing power of pensions, and that kind of thing. These, I know, are not very fascinating expositions, but before going any further I do say that in the minds of all of us who
  1184
  may have to quote figures this afternoon there remains the picture of the people involved.
  We meet in our regular work as Members of Parliament the people who are involved in this consideration. We think of the old people who, as the years pass by, though their monetary income may be looked after by some reference to an index of prices, find difficulty in keeping going. Carpets wear out, furniture becomes dry and rickety with age, and old people find difficulty in replacing such items. On some reference to a price index their standard may be as it was years ago, but to those directly concerned it is not. Their position is difficult, and it is getting worse. The struggle to keep going becomes harder with the passage of the years.
  We think of the sick; the wage earner who is taken ill and has to remain on sickness benefit for a long time and has to supplement that benefit with National Assistance. He is confronted by the same sort of problem—the difficulty of keeping his children in the state that he would like for them—because, through no fault of his own, he is sick.
  We think of the deserted wives with children to look after; women whose husbands have disappeared and are not paying maintenance allowances. Those women have to go to the National Assistance Board, and it is a struggle for them to keep their children as they would like and to save them from injury resulting from the father's wrong. And there are the widows in somewhat similar circumstances.
  I recall the despairing wife who saw me not very long ago whose husband had, for the third time, broken open the gas meter and taken the money. He had been sent to prison on this occasion for quite a long term. As a result, through no fault of her own, she was faced with a very considerable debt to pay to the Gas Board. She had to go to the National Assistance Board. The Board was unable to pay the debt for her, and she is thus faced with this terrible problem in her domestic life.
  In talking figures, we have not forgotten the people behind them. The figures are only the summary of all the daily problems that we, as Members of Parliament, continually meet. From the case presented to us last week, we know

  1185
  that it is expected that the State will make a saving of £8 million a year on National Assistance, due to the increases in insurance benefits that last week were authorised. That saving could come about in two ways: in part, by some people being eligible for smaller allowances than they had previously, and in part by a reduction in the numbers entitled to allowances.
  I was sorry that the hon. Lady did not give any estimate—unless I misunderstood her—of the reduction expected in actual numbers of persons. Will the £8 million saving which we are promised arise in part from a reduction in actual numbers expected to resort to National Assistance? If so, how much? Perhaps the Minister, if he speaks, will try to answer that question. He cannot answer it with complete accuracy, but perhaps he can give us some idea of the expectation of the Board.
  In December, 1956, there were 379,000 people drawing National Assistance of less than 10s. Assuming that all such persons were enabled to go off assistance—that would be a very big assumption indeed; it is the maximum assumption—the numbers still drawing assistance would be 1,288,000—say, 1,800,000, taking into account their dependants. If we take the lesser sum and assume that only those receiving 5s. or less from the Board will be able to go off assistance, then the number still on National Assistance would be 1,577,000, or in total more than 2 million people. Although there will be a saving and some people may in consequence of the recent increases in benefit no longer need to resort to assistance, the total numbers remaining on assistance will he very large indeed; in fact, too large.
  I now turn to the tobacco concession about which a great deal was said last week and about which I spoke. I therefore do not want to take too long over this subject this afternoon. I would remind the House that the Minister last week justified the withdrawal of the tobacco token from retirement and old-age pensioners on the ground that as it was an anomalous institution it could be withdrawn only when the increase in pension was substantial. It was the unanimous opinion of hon. Members on this side of the House, as shown in the Division Lobby, that we did not think
  1186
  the proposed increases in the benefit rates were substantial enough to justify the withdrawal of the tobacco token.
  We all said that a 10s. increase in benefit is not substantial enough to justify the withdrawal of the token; and, if that is so, what about an increase in assistance of only 5s.? How can it be argued that that is a substantial enough increase to justify the withdrawal of the tobacco token? Or will the Minister rely on some other argument? The argument last week was that here is a substantial increase and this now justifies the withdrawal of a concession made in order to enable these people to have a slightly more comfortable life than otherwise.
  What is the argument today? Will we be told that an increase in National Assistance scale rates of 5s. is substantial enough? It leaves, as the hon. Lady rightly said—she did not shirk it—the pensioner recipient of National Assistance at the bottom end of the scale with an increase of only 2s. 8d. I had a letter from a man and wife who are both smokers and where, in consequence, the increase in the joint assistance allowance will be only 4d. a week—a derisory amount.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at that figure? The gross increase for a married couple is 9s. Nine shillings less 4s. 8d. does not leave 4d.
  Mr. Marquand: I beg the Minister's pardon; it was a slip of the tongue and a silly thing to say. I made too hasty a calculation. I should have subtracted from nine shillings. The reduction, however, is larger for a married couple in proportion than for a single person.
  Surely the proposed increase of 5s. and the increase of 9s. in the joint pension are not sufficiently substantial to warrant the concession withdrawal. Could not something be done about it? What has been done about it? The total number of retirement pensioners drawing assistance in September was 960,000. We were told that 53 per cent. of such pensioners are smokers and receive cheap tobacco. I should have thought that to say it was 50 per cent. for this group might be a fair estimate. The hon. Lady thinks that it must be less than that. Even if it is less than 50 per cent., there

  1187
  must be not very far short of 400,000 people drawing National Assistance, who if they continue to smoke will receive an increase of only 2s. 8d. a week.
  The Assistance Board in putting forward this proposal tell us that "they have taken into account"—those art the words they use in their Memorandum—this change. How have they taken it into account? Those who do not smoke will receive an increase of 5s. Those who continue to smoke will receive an increase of 2s. 8d. Frankly I do not understand the phrase "have taken into account".
  What do they mean by saying they have taken it into account? It seems to be a question still without any satisfactory explanation, and I hope that the Minister will attempt to give, a rather better explanation than merely saying that it was "taken into account". Why was it right, then, to give to a certain group of people on National Assistance a much larger increase than that given to the other group? Is it felt that those in the other group are less in need, or is it hoped in this way to persuade them to change their habits and give up smoking?
  What are the old people supposed to do who receive this increase of 2s. 8d. and who, in their declining years, find smoking a solace and comfort? One wonders whether some way could be found to give an extra monetary concession in lieu of the tobacco token to those who buy tobacco. I am in no position to know whether or not some adjustment might have been administratively practical. We should like to know whether any tempering of the wind to the shorn lamb was considered and, if so, why it was not adopted.
  Passing from the tobacco concession, how are the new levels of assistance which we are asked to approve this afternoon calculated? We have not peen told this in the recent debates. No real explanation has been given. We have been told in effect, "Taking everything into consideration, we feel that the increases now proposed are about right." We have always had to accept the increases proposed. We are glad that an increase has been given; but even if we find the increase insufficient we cannot amend the proposals put before us. We have to accept them. It is an unsatisfactory position to be in.
  1188
  We have been told in the past that the increases proposed are intended partly to compensate for past price increases which have taken place in the interval since the last increase was made, and partly to guard against possible price increases in the future. How are these two elements provided for here? The rise in the index of retail prices since January, 1956, has been 7 per cent. It so happens that the base figure of 100 is taken to apply to January, 1956, and there has been since January, 1956, a 7 per cent. rise. The index now stands at 107.
  The increase in the scale rate proposed for non-smokers is 12½ per cent., but it is only 6·6 per cent. for the smoker: so that for the smoker, it seems to me—I am subject to correction; my calculation may be mistaken—that the increase in allowances proposed is less than the increase that has taken place meanwhile in the general level of prices since the last increase. The hon. Lady said she thought that the increase proposed even for the smoker would make good the rise in prices in the interval. I should like to have a further comment about that from the Minister, because what the hon. Lady says does not seem to me to be accurate.
  Our arguments in all these matters are always vitiated by the lack of a proper criterion by which to measure whether the increases are accurate and whether they will really represent an adequate standard of living and a satisfactory rise in allowances when price increases have taken place. The arguments are unsatisfactory because we have no special index to which we can refer. We all know perfectly well that the general index of retail prices is based upon calculations which exclude altogether the expenditure of persons like retirement pensioners and those drawing National Assistance. They are left out of the calculation. The index is based upon a middle-range group of incomes and expenditure. There is no special index for the kind of commodities which these very poor people buy—or if there is an index we have never been permitted to see it.
  At long last—indeed, at very long last—we have had what I have been pressing for for some time in Questions to the Minister of Labour. We have had the publication of the results of the household expenditure inquiry containing some information, I think rather scanty, about

  1189
  the expenditure of what they call "pensioner households." These are not necessarily all pensioners, but they are persons whose incomes are so small as to resemble those of pensioners, and they must include very large numbers of pensioners.
  In page 246 of this report of the household expenditure inquiry we get at last an official picture of how a person in this sort of income group spends his money. It would be impossible to quote all these figures and far too difficult for anyone to follow them, but I can refer to one column which gives the expenditure of one-person households in this very low income group. As it happens, the total expenditure of these households was found to be 55s. 11d., and the amount spent on housing was 10s. 7d. The difference between those figures is almost exactly the new figure of the Assistance scale rate for an adult person. So it must be a pretty fair picture of how a person going on to the new scale rate will be able to live, because if one excludes the rent which the Board pays in addition to the allowance, the amount left is almost exactly 45s. It shows that such a person, having only 45s. to spend on things other than rent, can afford only 21s. 10½d. for food.
  In page 247 we find, if we make a calculation, that 25s. 3d. is what the person in the average household was spending on food. It is lower than the national average, which was even higher than 28s. in the national food survey. The average person in the country—at least, those in the middle-income group—require about 25s. for food. The one-person householder living on National Assistance scales at the new rate will find himself able to spend only 22s. at the outside on food—not because he needs less food than other people, for I am sure he does not, but because of the high cost of the other essentials which he has got to buy. He has to spend 7s. 81½d. on fuel, light and power. He has to spend 2s. 11½d. on clothing and footwear—a terribly small amount on clothing and footwear compared with the expenditure of the average middle-income group where the figure works out at something over 8s. on clothing and footwear.
  The person on Assistance who has to eke these things out as well as he can in order to leave himself enough on which to live in the way of essential food has
  1190
  to cut his expenditure to 2s. 11½d. We know from what we see ourselves that the old people make their clothing last very much longer than anyone would want to if he could help it. Therefore, from this table I conclude from these figures that the increases now proposed for the adult person from 40s. to 45s. are barely sufficient to maintain what I would regard as an inadequate subsistence level.
  The increases must, therefore, by the same token, be much less than sufficient to maintain the person who has acquired the habit of smoking and cannot give it up. Those who are to receive only 2s. 8d. a week in increased purchasing power as a result of these allowances will be very badly off indeed. The total increase of 5s. can only just make good the increase in prices which has taken place, and the 400,000 or more who are to have half that increase, roughly speaking, are not getting enough.
  Let me say something about other groups than these older people. I have often spoken during these debates on families and children in particular, and I am glad to see that some increases have been made here and that proportionately some of them are larger than the other increases. It is notable that the increases for the younger dependent children still do not bring the allowances up to a level sufficient to cover the full cost of food, clothing and other necessities which they need.
  It will still be necessary for the parents of such children who have to resort to National Assistance to supplement their children's diet by school meals and from their own allowance. They will still find that children are the chief cause of poverty. I cannot help feeling that those parents who have to maintain four or five children will themselves, if they do their duty by their children, have to exist on a standard a good deal lower than that of some other people.
  The examples which the National Assistance Board gives in paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum show, I know, incomes which at first sight appear quite substantial. It gives an example of a family with three children and shows that at present such a family would have an income of £6 8s. 6d. and that under the new increases it would have an income of £7 2s. 6d. a week.

  1191
  It seems to be that from the examples which the Board gives it must be thinking very much along the lines to which I referred last week, that allowances of this kind should never, if possible, be allowed to go very much above basic rates of wages lest there be an incentive to the parent or the income owner not to go to work, but to try to remain in idleness and live on National Assistance.
  As I said last week, far too much importance is attached to that argument. I referred to the sanctions which already exist in the rules governing the drawing of unemployment and sickness benefit to prevent anything of the kind happening, in addition to the sanctions which the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health can use to prevent people trying to live on the Welfare State, the National Assistance Board itself has power to ensure that people do not use these allowances for their own benefit and against the interest of their children.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) tried to persuade us during the course of the last debate on this subject that there were large numbers of people living in idleness in this way, who were drawing allowances and multiplying the number of their children all the time and living as parasites on the Welfare State. I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware of what is in page 13 of the National Assistance Board's Annual Report. It says:
  "A man in a position to maintain his wife and children who persistently refuses or neglects to do so lays himself open to prosecution under section 51 of the Act. During the year there were 350 prosecutions of this kind; the husband was convicted in all but two instances and in 223 cases was sent to prison."
  The idea that in this country it is possible for people to live in idleness on the Welfare State, to take more than their fair share and to make their children suffer is a myth. The Board takes action in all these cases and the penalties imposed are quite severe, quite apart from the protective devices woven into the National Insurance scheme. Therefore, I do not think that there is any real danger at all in the total income of a large family in receipt of these allowances going above the lowest rates of wages.
  There is no danger at all of abuse, and if we go on the wrong assumption
  1192
  that we ought to keep down the total allowances paid to the level of the lowest wages paid in the country we run the far greater risk that children will not be properly cared for, not due to their parents' neglect, but through their inability to provide them with the necessities of life from the small incomes available to them. Even if it were not true that there were all these sanctions, it would still be wrong to penalise the many for the sake of the few or to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children. I welcome the increases, but I must make it clear that I am still not happy with the final result.
  The Parliamentary Secretary reminded us quite correctly that, of course, the National Assistance Board pays the rent of persons who resort to it over and above the scale rate of allowances. I know that, but I want to know whether there is to be any change in the Board's policy in this respect. I hope there is not, but I am bound to ask the question. The hon. Lady said—and I wrote down the words to be sure that I made no mistake—
  "The Board's policy is to meet the rent in full."
  Is that still its policy? Can we have an assurance that there will be no change?
  The reason I ask this question is, of course, because we have read Circular No. 55/57 issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on 20th November this year, in paragraph 3 of which, in reference to housing accommodation for old people, it says:
  "Some old people may be affected by the decontrol provisions of the Rent Act, and a number may have, within the next twelve months, to find accommodation better suited to their means."
  That is a wonderful phrase. What it is really saying to the old people is, "Your landlord will increase your rent and if you do not pay you must get out."
  If a person is drawing a National Assistance allowance and if the Board is now paying the rent, will it follow the policy laid down by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? Will it say, "You had better find 'accommodation better suited to your means'"? Is the Board to ally itself with the landlord in pushing such an old person out of his house? I do not believe that the members of the Board would personally

  1193
  ever want to do such a thing—I am making no accusations against them at all. This is the policy of the Government, and the circular merely puts into very carefully chosen words what we know to be the policy of the Government.
  Have the Government indicated in any way—I hope they have not—that the Board should do this? I hope to have an assurance that this is not so. Will the Minister say whether it is still the Board's policy to "meet the rent in full"? This is a very important question, and I am sure that it will be treated as such. I hope that we shall be given a straight answer.
  I have already spoken longer than I intended, but before I sit down I should like to ask what of the future of all this. What is to be the future of National Assistance to which we can look forward after these increases have come into operation and when we have had time to reconsider the whole problem of the welfare of the retirement pensioner which we discussed last week? Surely we want to see that people who resort to National Assistance are not merely sustained in the level of consumption which we all thought was all that the nation could afford in 1946.
  We want to see that they are given not merely increases in allowances in accordance with the rise in prices which will keep them always at the same levels of purchasing power and consumption which were appropriate in 1946, but that they, along with the drawers of benefit, get a share of the increasing wealth of the community. We want to see that they shall be entitled, as time passes, to a rise in real standards as well as a rising standard in money terms. The scale rates from time to time must move more quickly than the level of prices.
  We want also to see that the total numbers of persons drawing National Assistance are reduced. Particularly I want to see that happen so that the National Assistance Board can concentrate on the task, which I know it likes doing, of looking after welfare. As the right hon. Gentleman knows. I had the pleasure, as he did, of addressing the annual summer school of the National Assistance Board. That was a very great pleasure.
  Having given them a talk about some of my ideas on welfare, I was much
  1194
  impressed to see the great extent to which officers of the Board, at all sorts of levels and in different parts of the country, were doing their best to carry out a welfare policy and drawing the attention of the welfare committees of local authorities responsible in each district to cases where special help was needed, discussing with individuals problems and trying to help them to a solution of many of these human problems.
  They do not regard their job merely as one of doling out pounds, shillings and pence. They cannot do this job as we want them to do it if the load is too heavy and the total mass of people resorting to the Board so numerous that the officers have no time, or insufficient time, left beyond that devoted to mere routine payment.
  I hope that in future we can work out a means of ensuring that the total numbers needing to resort to National Assistance can be reduced. Too many persons entitled to National Assistance benefit are drawing assistance. There are plenty of others who are not entitled to National Insurance benefit but who are afflicted, and will be for some years, and who, therefore, have to go to the National Assistance Board. We must care for them through National Assistance as there is no other way of helping them. If we are to concentrate on the welfare of those people we have somehow to reduce the numbers of those entitled to benefit who are now obliged to seek assistance.
  I think that the solution lies not in keeping the National Assistance rate intolerably low and well below the pension rate so that people cannot resort to National Assistance. The solution surely lies the other way. It lies in getting really satisfactory rates of benefit and pension under the insurance Acts so that people can draw what is necessary to obtain a really reasonable and decent standard of living without the need to go to National Assistance at all. It is along those ways we must look for a solution. A solution of the National Assistance and National Insurance benefit problems can be found by building now, on the foundations well laid in 1946, a better and more satisfactory system of insurance which will give people when they retire, or become sick, or unemployed, a really satisfactory subsistence standard of living.
  5.24 p.m.
  Dr. Horace King: I wish to begin by paying tribute to the professional workers doing field work in National Assistance. I know that when I speak from experience of the capability, keenness, kindly sympathy and tradition of generous and sympathetic help which has been built up by the National Assistance department in my town, I am saying what is true of every corner of England. I am glad that in opening the debate the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to the mass of supplementary and extra help for exceptional circumstances in which every National Assistance officer has to use a tremendous amount of personal discretion and personal sympathy. I want to pay tribute to the way in which I have found them doing that.
  If I begin with a small local grievance, I hope the House will forgive me, for it has wider implications. One of the anomalies that arose early this year was the position of men out of work for a few days before a strike takes place and who, under the twelve-day rule, are ineligible for unemployment pay, ineligible for National Assistance and ineligible for strike pay from their union. The local National Assistance officers and National Insurance officers in Southampton, dealing with 400 or 500 men, were generous and swift in action and did all that was necessary and the matter was sent to the centre, yet it was some five or six months before those workmen—out of work through no fault of their own before the strike had begun—got what they were entitled to receive. I do not blame the Minister. I found the Minister quite courteous in all the correspondence dealing with this matter, but there was something wrong and I hope he will see that it is put right in case there should he any application of the twelve-day rule in future.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: Surely the Minister has some obligation because some of the men actually drew unemployment benefit and then had it stopped because of the strike?
  Dr. King: This illustrates the complexity of the problem and the sense of injustice, felt by my fellow workers of Southampton. No one hates anything so much as injustice.
  1196
  May I also say how I like the way National Assistance officers went out of their way to mitigate the evils of the Rent Act, before I put a question to the Minister on that matter? Hundreds and thousands of old folk made anxious and miserable by the acts of this Government, had their anxieties relieved by the swift behaviour of the local officers and by the action of the Minister himself at the Dispatch Box. When I raised this question with the Minister before he misunderstood me. I did not suggest that any old folk are suffering because landlords are doing illegal acts and charging illegal rents. I am asking whether the Minister and the National Assistance officers are prepared to meet increased rents not when rents are illegal, but when they are excessive.
  If an old-age pensioner is living in a controlled house, the increase cannot be more than twice the gross rateable value, and in July the Minister said that he was prepared to meet that, but if the old-age pensioner is in a decontrolled house there is no limit to the rent which a landlord can charge. The Minister in July said that National Assistance would meet reasonable increases in rent. I hope that that means all increases. I hope we can have assurances this afternoon that the National Assistance Board is prepared to meet even the profiteering charges of the worse landlords in the country where old-age pensioners are living in decontrolled houses. I cannot imagine that there are many, but there may be some. Incidentally, I think it a bad thing that we should have to subsidise this greedy landlordism out of National Assistance.
  I wish to raise the question of procedure. The House is inclined to take the Regulations we are now discussing as something decided for us by the National Assistance Board and to assume what we do is to say, "Yes," or "No". It is true that Ministers of both political parties have encouraged this passing of the responsibility to the Board. It is true that the Board was deliberately set up away from Parliament, and that no Member of Parliament can become a member of the Board. I would pay a tribute to the effectiveness of this method by saying that more adjustments have been made to the basic rates of benefit under this system than would perhaps have been made had we proceeded each time by

  1197
  means of the ordinary method of legislation in this House.
  Reference has been made to the fact that there have been six changes in the basic scale of National Assistance. I notice that hon. Members opposite and the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, when making comparisons for political purposes about the treatment of old folk, always begin with 1948 for those arguments, when we broke the old Poor Law and set up National Assistance. They always begin with 1946 when referring to old-age pensioners and forget the fact that in 1946 and 1948 we made revolutionary changes both in National Assistance and in the basic pension scale. There have been six changes.
  In 1948 the figure was 24s. to begin with; in 1950 it was 26s.; in 1951, 30s.; 1952, 35s.; 1955, 37s. 6d.; 1956, 40s., and now in 1957, it is 45s. All that was done by means of Regulations of the kind we are discussing now. It is a much swifter way of proceeding and a tremendous advantage of the machinery we have set up; but the power is always with Parliament. Obviously Parliament will not turn down the increase proposed in these Regulations. But under the current Act—Section 6 of Part II of the 1948 Act—the instructions to the Board are that it submits draft Regulations to the Minister and if he approves them, he submits them to Parliament,
  "either in the form of draft as submitted or with such variations and amendments as he thinks fit."
  So that if the Board does not award enough to the poorest old-age pensioner, the Minister can say so; except that the Act lays down that if he alters the draft, for better or for worse, he must send it back to the Board to look at it again. Therefore, if my argument is right, it is the responsibility of the Minister that we are raising the rate of National Assistance by the 5s. and the 9s. as we are doing tonight.
  The Minister could have made these more generous Regulations had he so chosen. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman would have done so, had the Treasury permitted it. If the hand is the hand of the Chairman of the National Assistance Board, the voice is not even the voice of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I am not
  1198
  right in what I have said so far, all that the Board is doing is an exercise in mathematics and statistics, and we sometimes question the validity both of mathematics and statistics. It is simply calculating the necessary amount to the nearest shilling to equate what we are now paying with what we paid in 1948, and then adding on a bit for increases in the cost of living which may occur a little later. If that is so, I think that when the party on this side of the House returns to power we shall have to alter the structure and terms of reference of the Board.
  I have never been shaken in my view that we ought to have separate statistics accessible to Members of Parliament as well as to the Board to provide a special index of the cost of living of those people with whose welfare we are concerned under the terms of these Regulations. I understand that the Chairman of the Board has his own index but we have never been able to have one available to Members of Parliament so that we might debate and discuss it. The simple fact is that for the poor people of England the main expenditure is on food, heat and shelter. While National Assistance takes care of shelter completely, the costs of food and heat are rising out of all proportion to any other rises in the cost of living.
  In our debates on National Assistance we have come to discuss the problem of the relative claims for stepping up the basic insurance pensions and supplementary pensions respectively. I suppose that theoretically my right hon. Friend was right when he said that the goal should be to have such a generous basic scale that nobody would need to be on National Assistance. But that can never be for a long time yet. I hope to show the House the kind of people who are on National Assistance, but, roughly speaking, it covers first many people who in the nature of things cannot qualify for the basic insurance benefit.
  There are the chronic sick and unemployed and those with no means at all. There are the widows, still being treated unjustly by Ministers from both sides of the House. The fact that so many widows are on National Assistance is an indication that we are inadequately providing for the widows of the country. There is a whole group of people from the pre-insurance days who can never qualify for the full benefit of the basic scale of

  1199
  National Insurance. More than that, we have never yet got the basic scale to anything like enough to maintain anyone solely dependent on it at a decent standard of living. I hope to show in a moment that many people on National Assistance are getting everything to which they are entitled from National Insurance, but because they have no other income than what they receive by way of National Insurance, they must be helped by National Assistance.
  We are now discussing people who are at the rock-bottom. Many of the people getting a 10s. increase in pension have other means of income, and we discussed them last week. The people we are discussing now, many of whom are getting not 10s. but 5s.—the Minister said there were half-a-million of them—are the poorest in the country. To some of us this state of affairs seems utterly wrong. Some of us believe that to him that hath not shall be given and from him that hath, including the Surtax payer, shall be taken away the money to do it.
  It is important, and I agree with the hon. Lady, that we should know just what National Assistance people are getting out of this. I read today in a north country newspaper, the Sunday Sun, a moving and human article on what the new benefits mean to old-age pensioners. The newspaper quoted the case of an 82-year old lady. The article stated:
  "She will put her extra 10s. a week towards building up a stock of coal to last the winter and to paying a rent increase of 3s. 4½d."
  This statement is incorrect in two ways, as I hope to show. The two ways almost cancel out, but the old lady is worse off even than the writer of the article thinks. She will not get 10s. a week, for she is on National Assistance, and she will get an increase of only 5s. Fortunately, the rent increase has already been met, I am quite certain, by National Assistance, so that may be cancelled out. What she is really getting is an increase of 5s. plus coverage for the extra 3s. 4d. a week rent.
  Her income is £2 basic pension plus £1 13s. 6d. National Assistance. Incidentally, that is a tribute to the little things which the National Assistance Board does to help, because she is receiving more than merely her rent. Her total income will rise from £3 13s. 6d. to £3 18s. 6d., plus another 7s. 6d. rent increase which she
  1200
  has to face next April but which, I am happy to say, National Assistance will meet. All she is getting out of this increase, therefore, is 5s.
  She has given her budget, and I would refer hon. Members to the Sunday Sun for them to see how poor old folk spend their money. She spends 12s. 9d. on food and 37s. 6d. on her month's coal. She buys five bags of coal a month, and old folk need warmth more than young folk do. The price of her coal is to rise by 3s. 9d. In giving her budget in the Sunday Sun, which is not exactly a Labour paper, she has worked out that she has only 3s. 9d., after she has met her essential requirements to meet the cost of coal, shoe repairs, warm clothing, sweets, entertainment and bus fares. The stark poverty of the poor was thus dramatically illustrated. Provided that this old lady does not smoke, she will receive 5s. a week more as a result of these Regulations, but if she smokes she will receive only 2s. 8d. out of them. This will hardly meet the increased cost of her coal.
  I want to examine for a moment the kind of people who are getting National Assistance. In this respect I commend to the House the Report of the National Assistance Board for this year. Three-quarters of them are getting National Assistance because their National Insurance is inadequate. Thirty per cent. of them are getting it because they have been sick for a long time and because their sickness insurance benefit under National Insurance is not enough. Those sick folk will get an extra 5s. If they have children, they will get an extra 2s. for the first child and 1s. 6d. for each subsequent child.
  A quarter of those on National Assistance are widows. The statistics given in the book show that, excluding the 10s. widow and the no-shilling widow, the widows who are worst off in the country, nearly a quarter of all widows are getting National Assistance because what we are giving them as of right under the National Insurance scheme is inadequate. I hope I am wrong when I say that this group of widows on National Assistance will get an increase of only 5s. In other words, I believe that the stepping up of the widow's basic insurance benefit will benefit them by only 5s. apart from children's increases as before mentioned.

  1201
  A quarter of those on National Assistance are old folk on retirement, and I will say a word about them in a moment. One-fifth of those on National Assistance are unemployed. I want to follow up a point made by my right hon. Friend, particularly in view of references in an earlier debate to the alleged idleness of unemployed who receive National Assistance. Altogether, 55,000 unemployed are receiving National Assistance. The Report excludes those who are over 60 and those who have been unemployed for a short time and are likely to go back to work, perhaps, next week. We are left with 32,000 unemployed. Of those, two-fifths had been out of work for two years. Fourteen out of fifteen were unskilled. Of those 32,000, 25 per cent. were in poor physical health, 63 per cent. had some definite physical handicap and 24 per cent. were handicapped mentally. In all, 23,000 were handicapped physically or mentally, while many more were in poor health. The Report also points out that these figures for mentally handicapped are bound to be lower than the actual figures, as the officers could only judge very obvious cases.
  Of these figures, 7 per cent., or 2,000 people in the whole country, were labelled work-shy, and of those 2,000, 670 were in poor health and almost an equal number were in bad mental health. We are therefore left with only a tiny fraction of people in this country taking National Assistance benefits because they are unwilling to work. I quote from the Report that
  "…wilful idleness as distinct from an understandable lack of keenness arising from physical or mental disability or other causes would seem to account for the lengthy unemployment in very few cases indeed."
  I am grateful to the Report for the tribute to the honour and honesty of the British worker. I agree that we must punish the rare shirker who takes advantage of National Assistance, and I am interested in the reference to what has been done in that connection, and especially to the promising attempts at re-establishment of some of them. Nevertheless, on the whole, National Assistance is helping worthy and honourable but unfortunate people.
  I have so far mentioned the main categories. Let me mention two others. We are helping 71,000 wives, 25,000 of them
  1202
  with young children maintained by the State because the husbands and fathers refuse to keep them. We are doing that at a cost of £81 million. I do not grudge what we do out of National Assistance for the discarded wife and the neglected child, but I welcome the news that the Government propose to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) have tried to do by Private Bills—try to make some recalcitrant husbands of England live up to the marriage responsibilities which they undertake when they marry and breed children.
  Another group consists of illegitimate children. I always feel inclined to protest against the expression "illegitimate children," because I do not think there is an illegitimate child in the world. The illegitimacy is nothing with which we can reproach the child. We are paying for some 22,000 illegitimate children under National Assistance, and I am happy about that expenditure of about £1¼ million because it is helping to keep the child in the home of the unmarried mother. Even from the lowest point of view, it is much cheaper for the State that a child should be cared for in its mother's own home. It is certainly infinitely better on all kinds of spiritual and other counts.
  I welcome this debate as an opportunity of paying tribute to a great social work being steadily carried out by a great public institution—the National Assistance Board. My only regret tonight is one which has been expressed by my right hon. Friend: it is tragic to think that of the money which the Minister is giving to help the pensioners of the country, those who need it most will get least. I want to be fair; it is true that for a man, wife and three children the increase will be 14s. and not 9s. and for a man, wife and one child it will be 11s., but I doubt whether that increase would buy the fruit which such a family ought to have in one week.
  We ought to remember, too, that the rent increases for these people are covered, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, but in my opinion the real and bitter hardship will be to the old married couple and to the single old ladies and gentlemen who smoke. These single people will receive 5s. but will lose their

  1203
  tobacco token, which is worth 2s. 4d. No old persons ought to be asked or can be expected to deprive themselves of the luxury of smoking. Consequently, the old lady or gentleman who smokes will get 2s. 8d. out of these new provisions. If Darby and Joan both smoke, then instead of getting an increase of 9s. they will get 4s. 4d. I think it is wrong we should have put them in that position, and it is because of this treatment of the poorest old people that, while we shall support this Measure and not vote against it, we express our bitter regret that it is not more generous.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Bell: I think it would be a pity if some observations were not made from this side of the House in view—if I may say so without unction—of the very interesting contributions which have been made. But I would make my little mild protest on this melancholy subject—and poverty is a melancholy thing. Dr. Johnson, I think, said poverty made some virtues impracticable and others impossible.
  What interests me very much about this is that nobody ever thinks that, with our education and with our growing wealth, the majority of the people might somehow by their own earnings and their own skill save enough for their old age. Gone, apparently for ever, is the hope of the British workman, which his grandfather and great-grandfather had, of ever being in a position in our economic system to save for himself. It is a reflection upon us that we should be so defeatist that poverty is at our throat.
  The other interesting thing is this balance between pension and National Assistance. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said, among many other things which touched me and with which I agreed, that the sad thing about this regulation of Assistance is that those who need it most get least.
  It would be a good thing if we could get rid of National Assistance except for a small minimum and hand all a pension. For myself, I should prefer to see it provided by themselves. That provision is growing in industry. About £1 million a year now is paid out in insurances by private firms; some 8 million people are covered already by insurance schemes; and the numbers will go up, although
  1204
  those schemes will never carry the whole of the population. I think that would be best.
  The next best is that the State should devise a system by which people could themselves, by uniting together, have a pension which would take more people off National Assistance. But we must not be hypocrites about it, for if they do not earn and buy their pensions it is a face-saving device to talk about pensions as of right when they have not paid for them. It is an odd thing that although the pensioner does not mind saying, "Part of my pension I have earned, part is given to me", although it does not matter if it is given to him by a pensions board, it does matter if it is given to him by the National Assistance Board.
  It seems to me that in our limited resources the first thing must come first, and it is National Assistance. I wish we could put up the old-age pensions to £5 a week. Everybody wants that. However, if I am to choose between giving to old-age pensioners, irrespective of means, and half of whom have other incomes, and to those on National Assistance, my mind supports the loading of the scale of National Assistance. That is what I should like to see.
  I was delighted to hear the publicity given to the Report of the National Assistance Board for this year, and I certainly associate myself with the compliments paid to the officers of the Board. It is true that people who are now drawing National Assistance are, on the whole, doing so bona fide. There is no doubt about that. Let us not, however, be too sentimental about it. People waste their substance. They waste their health. They ignore their opportunities. Nearly every man who is old and poor has something on his conscience. We are a Christian nation and we must help them, but let us not go round making out that old age itself is a virtue. It is not necessarily a virtue. Therefore, while I would regard it as a duty to support people in need, whatever the circumstances which caused it, I do not think we ought to make it altogether a matter of merit. I have no strong objection, and no party objection, to anything which has been said, and I welcome very much these provisions which certainly will, to an extent, relieve poverty.

  1205
  One final thought. Is it necessary every time we discuss Regulations of this sort to make those critical remarks about those who pay Surtax? Is it really thought that if we take from everybody earning over £2,000 a year every £ they receive in excess of £2,000 and spread it amongst the people it would add to the wealth of the old-age pensioners or of those drawing National Assistance? That distinguished Member of this House, Sir Stafford Cripps, worked out exactly how many shillings per head per working family per week it would come to. If I remember aright, it came to the big sum of 1s. I do not think it is necessary to overload our debates with that sort of argument.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) referred to one aspect of the National Assistance Board's work which, I admit, is very important, the care and protection of the old. But he made no reference at all to that other section of the community who, because of their disabilities, have to go to the National Assistance Board for the relief of their poverty. I am referring to the special cases of sickness about which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) is an expert. No doubt, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he will have something to say about them.
  I was rather sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East said what I do not think is true, that the people of the last generation and of the one before that were more thrifty than this generation. They may have intended to be thrifty, but they certainly had not the means, and I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that those generations were more thrifty than people are today.
  When I heard the Minister announce the proposed scales, and still more when I had had time to reflect upon them, I felt a very keen sense of disappointment, for the reason that the most favoured are not to get more than 5s. while those who indulge in what is described as the pleasurable habit of smoking will get only 2s. 8d. I ask the Minister, can he completely and sincerely justify the proposals which have been put forward at this moment by the National Assistance
  1206
  Board? I had hoped that it would have taken a less niggardly approach to this very special problem than it has taken by putting forward these proposals.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said some very interesting things and gave some very interesting figures about rents. There is only one observation I would make about that now. Let us assume for a moment that under the operation of the Rent Act of this year the average increase in this item of household expenditure of those in receipt of National Assistance is to be not more than 5s. That is the same amount as the Board is giving to meet the remaining two-thirds of the household expenditure.
  I want to make one or two observations about the question of discretion to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred and to ask the Minister whether he can give us a little more information than was offered to us by the hon. Lady on this matter, particularly as it affects the long-term sickness cases. I know of people who have been in receipt of public assistance continuously, either from the old board of guardians, from the public assistance committees of county councils and county boroughs and, finally, from the National Assistance Board. Throughout that period these people have been in receipt of assistance yet they are still not old people.
  I have had a letter from a constituent with whom I have profound sympathy. He has been on sickness benefit since 1937. His case has fallen between two stools. He served in the First World War and he is of the opinion that his chest condition was caused by exposure to gas in that war. When, as a coalminer, he was turned down by the Ministry of Pensions, he applied to go before the pneumoconiosis medical panel. That panel agreed with the medical evidence of the Ministry of Pensions that he had a very bad chest and was suffering from a severe lung condition, but, whilst the Ministry of Pensions medical evidence was to the effect that his condition was not caused by gas, the pneumoconiosis medical panel said that he was suffering not from pneumoconiosis but from bronchitis.
  All that he has been receiving since 1937 in respect of that chest condition is sickness benefit. In 1937 this was disablement pay of 10s. 6d. a week and he

  1207
  received assistance from the public assistance committee. This case is typical of a large number, and I should like the Minister to consider the position of these recipients of National Assistance. They have been in receipt of £2 or £3 and now it is proposed that they should receive £3 16s. per week, plus an allowance for rent. Does any hon. Member think that people of that kind, after a long period on the standard of life that I have described, are in anything but a state of poverty today? Their furniture has become worn out and their household goods and utensils need replacement.
  I appeal specially to the Minister that in cases of this kind he should suggest to the National Assistance Board that, without being asked by the individuals concerned, the Board's welfare officers should be sent round to investigate these cases and that these people who have never worked for 20 years and will never work again should be looked after. The nature of their illness is not immediately killing, but it certainly is very crippling. It means suffering and poverty to a degree that cannot be described. I know that the Minister is not inhumane and I hope that the words uttered in the debate will not fall on deaf ears.
  In connection with the administration of the National Assistance Act, 1948, there is a point on disregards which I regard as very important in all the proposals to increase the benefit. The Parliamentary Secretary said that this benefit has been increased six times since 1948, and the National Assistance Act has been in operation for nearly seven years under the present Government. The hon. Lady spoke of comparisons between the rates now proposed and the rates in 1951. I do not know whether the present Government have any respect for the disregards which are statutorily provided for by the 1948 Act. I have failed to obtain any expression of opinion at all from them on the point. I have put Questions to the Minister but the answers have not been satisfactory from my point of view.
  My case on the disregards is that if the value at which they were fixed in 1948 was right, then, with the change that has taken place since in money values, that unaltered rate of disregards cannot be right today. The people who are the beneficiaries under the disregards provision are, in the main, the people who
  1208
  have been the most thrifty. They have paid for very small superannuation benefits. I am thinking, for instance, of the miners in Nottinghamshire where, in addition to the national pension, there is a local pension scheme which provides 15s. a week. Since 1948, 10s. 6d. of that pension has been disregarded. If that rate of disregard was right in 1948 it certainly is not right today.
  The Minister will confer a real blessing upon the people who are in receipt of these small payments to supplement their existing low incomes if he will have another and favourable look at this matter. This is not the Board's responsibility. It is the Minister's responsibility, if he thinks fit, to alter this piece of legislation. I appeal to him to consider the matter.
  There is no doubt that, if they have the opportunity, some of my hon. Friends will ventilate this grievance which has been so sorely felt in many parts of the country. I conclude, as I began, by expressing my keen disappointment at the miserable proposals which the National Assistance Board has put forward and which means not more than 5s. to the most favoured and can mean as little as 2s. 8d. to the least favoured.
  6.10 p.m.
  Sir Frederick Messer: I shall touch only briefly on two points concerning extra scale benefits. I remember very well that when we were debating the 1948 Measure special consideration was given to the peculiar position of blind people. The blind had been taken out of public assistance and the difficulty was how to incorporate in the new Bill an allowance that would be distinctive and separate from the ordinary insurance or assistance.
  At the time it was considered that 15s. would probably represent a fair average, taking into consideration the scale benefits for National Assistance and what was generally being given by the authorities then responsible for the maintenance of the blind. I am referring to the rates for a married couple. I shall not go through all the grades, because that would complicate what can be a clear and simple issue. It was decided at that time that the amount of 40s., which would be the scale rate for a man and wife, should be increased by 15s. for blind people.

  1209
  There was a second problem, namely, how to deal with another and rather strange category. During the war Memorandum 266T gave a benefit of 27s. 6d. a week to tubercular people who suffered any loss of income by taking treatment. It was then considered that if the blind and the tubercular people in that class were assimilated, that was as near to a reasonable arrangement as could be made.
  I will not say that these people are being very unfairly treated. Indeed, the organisations representing the blind—the National League of the Blind, the National Institute of the Blind, the Workshops for the Blind and other associations—at the time considered that a very fair arrangement had been made. I want to press the point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor); it is not just money that matters, it is money's worth. Therefore, if 15s. worth was the right difference between the ordinary scale and the special scale in those days, then that proportion ought to continue until now.
  That has not happened. It is true that the Board and the Minister have recognised that it would not be right to give exactly the same increase in every case, and so, in 1952, when the basic rate for a man and wife was 59s., the special scale rate was increased to 18s. I am not saying that was a correct proportion, but my point is that the principle has been conceded. The Ministry recognised that there was a right on the part of these special categories to have not just the same increase as others but a proportionate increase which would give them the same degree of exceptional benefit.
  In 1955, when the basic rate was raised to 63s. for a man and wife, 1s. extra was given to these special classes, who then received 19s. extra. In 1956, when another increase was given, the basic rate was 67s. a week with 20s. for the special category. This time, however, there has been nothing more than the bare increase by which all recipients will benefit, and nothing extra for the blind and the tubercular.
  I shall not attempt to cover the great variety of scales, because if I did so I should not then focus attention on two classes of people who, if anybody, want special treatment, particularly the blind.
  1210
  I have always considered it was a good arrangement to take blind people out of public assistance. People who are unemployed, and who it is known will be unemployable throughout their lives, should not have to depend on Assistance. Public assistance should be transitory, and so it was right to take them out of public assistance and put them under the county and county borough councils.
  I believe that a case has been made out for a proportionate increase in the case of the blind and the tubercular because they are a diminishing quantity. Since, fortunately, there are not many of them, it might be argued that this increase would not cost very much. At any rate a case has been made out for the blind, and I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us why in this instance he has not copied what has been done previously and given them a proportionate increase.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Finch: I support my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members in their contention that the majority of the increases proposed in the National Assistance Regulations are not sufficient. We have been reminded that we are here dealing with a section of the community which is existing on the lowest possible standard of living. With rising prices the 9s. proposed in these Regulations for a married couple will still leave their situation very little different from what it is at present, because 76s. plus rent will hardly meet the bare necessities of life, to say nothing of those smaller items which can give some added comfort and some little pleasure to the older generation in the evening of their days. After all, life can be very grim without a little pleasure or a little comfort, and there is not a right hon. or hon. Member in this House tonight who can say that 76s. is adequate to meet the present situation of this section of the community.
  My next point has been put already, but it would be interesting to know how the right hon. Gentleman arrived at these cold, naked figures. We should have knowledge of the basis of the increases suggested in the regulations. The Index of Retail Prices does not reflect properly the cost of living for those in receipt of National Insurance and National Assistance. We have already been reminded

  1211
  by my right hon. Friend that in March, 1956, the Cost of Living Advisory Committee submitted recommendations which were adopted by the Government. It submitted a new index by means of which retail prices should be fixed. It went out of its way to point out that there were certain groups which should be excluded from its calculations in arriving at the new index. At the top level were households the head of which had a recorded gross income of £20 per week or more, and at the lower end households in which three-quarters of the total income was derived from National Insurance benefits, retirement pensions and similar pensions, and National Assistance. Having made an exhaustive investigation to arrive at the new index, the Committee felt that such sections of the community should be excluded from the calculations. The reason was that the expenditure of such households was considered not to be typical of the average pattern of expenditure for the country.
  It is only recently that the Ministry of Labour has been able to publish in greater detail how the Committee arrived at its findings. It is evident from the figures which have been published that in the average household the amount spent on rent, fuel, light and food is about 48 per cent. of the total expenditure, but in the case of those on pension, National Insurance and National Assistance, where there is one person in the household, the figure is 72 per cent., and where there are two in the household it is 64 per cent., the average of these two being 68 per cent. Thus, the difference between the ordinary householder and someone on pension is 20 per cent.
  I try to be practical in these matters, and I would urge upon the Minister the need to get a yardstick in order to assess the payment of National Assistance. Here we have something which could very well be adopted in present circumstances—a separate index for those on pension and National Insurance benefit. I should be glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared, with the Minister of Labour, to go into the matter and give the House some information on these lines in the New Year. After a great deal of consideration, the Trades Union Congress has recommended that there should be a separate index for pensioners and those on National Insurance
  1212
  benefit. Thus, the great trade union movement supports the proposal. In the circumstances, the case is unanswerable.
  Apart from the figures, we know from experience that considerable hardship is suffered by pensioners and those on National Insurance benefit. Recently I met in my constituency a lady who was looking for wood so that she might be able to light a fire. She had no coal. She told me that she spent most of the daytime in winter in bed in order to keep warm. This is a terrible state of affairs. There are no doubt many people in similar circumstances.
  I urge the Minister to inquire into the matter of coal for those who are in dire need. The National Assistance Board is doing a very good job, and in many cases its officers show the spirit which has dispelled a great deal of the criticism which was voiced in the old days. Nevertheless, I would impress upon the Minister the fact that for the old-age pensioner coal is dear, and I urge him to look at the problem and consult his officers about it.
  Reference to disregards has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). The Regulations make no change in this respect. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, in the case of those in receipt of superannuation or pension any income above 10s. 6d. is taken into consideration for National Assistance purposes. That figure was fixed in 1948 and has never been changed, although there have been six changes in National Assistance rates since then. The same thing applies to those in receipt of workmen's compensation and Industrial Injuries benefit. In that case the figure is £1, and it was fixed in 1948. There are miners who have paid into pension schemes. At one time the miners pension from that was 10s. a week. By arrangement, the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board have been able to pay pensioners in the mining industry £1 a week, but every penny above 10s. 6d. is taken into consideration for National Assistance purposes. The effect is that much of those pensions goes to the National Assistance Board. The same thing applies to a number of industrial injured.
  Pensions of this type are small, being only 10s. or 15s. a week. My hon. Friend referred to the Nottingham scheme which provides a pension of 15s. a week. I

  1213
  repeat that the disregard figure was fixed in 1948 and has not since been changed although there have been changes in the earnings limit for retirement pensioners and increases in National Insurance benefits. In our recent debate I referred to the people who continue working after 65 and are able to earn a few shillings extra in pension increment. Yet that increment is taken into consideration for National Assistance purposes at a time when we are trying to encourage people to continue at work to help our economy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay special attention to disregards, especially in relation to pension and superannuation schemes, people receiving workmen's compensation, and those who continue to work after they are 65.
  There are also those individuals who are in local authority accommodation. They gel a pension of £2 a week from which 32s. 6d. has to be paid to the local authority for maintenance. That leaves a balance of 7s. 6d., in addition to which they have had the advantage of the tobacco token, giving a total of 9s. 10d. That is the equivalent of about 24 per cent. of their pension. I understand that under the new Regulations they are likely, in many cases, to get 10s. pocket money. I should have thought that the same percentage of 24 or 25 would have been applied, giving 12s. 6d. instead of 10s. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider those cases where hardship will be caused.
  I have dealt with one or two aspects of the problem. Like other hon. Members, I look forward to the time when insurance benefits will be so raised that fewer people will require National Assistance. I hope that until that time comes, at least one result of this debate will be that we shall get a separate index of the cost of living for those receiving National Assistance and National Insurance.
  The Government have every encouragement to do that. The trade union movement is behind them in this matter as are the Report of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee, hon. Members on this side of the House and, I believe, hon. Members opposite. If out of the debate comes an assurance that a separate index will be used as a basis for calculating National Assistance, then the debate will not have been without a beneficial result.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Prentice: I want to make three brief references to matters already raised in the debate. I want first to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on the need for a special cost-of-living index for pensioners and others living on National Insurance benefits and within the scope of National Assistance. For a very long time there has been evidence that the pattern of spending of people in those categories is very different from the average pattern of spending throughout the country.
  I realise, of course, that the objection can be raised that there are dozens or hundreds of different patterns of spending among different classes of people, but there is a special need for an index for these people so that we can get our facts right. We have no objective means of measuring whether the increases proposed in these Regulations will be adequate, nor of measuring what increases would be adequate, without some information about how the cost of living for the people concerned has altered since the last increases.
  That means that the figures which the hon. Lady gave in opening the debate cannot be taken at their face value. She said that there had been proportionate increases in the rates of assistance since 1948 and since 1951 which outstripped the rise in the cost of living, but we have to have regard to the fact that the index applies to the country as a whole. Food obviously plays a bigger part in the spending of poorer people than it does among the population as a whole. We know that since 1951 the cost of food has increased more than the cost of goods in general.
  There is the additional factor that throughout most of the period which the hon. Lady reviewed, rents were stabilised by rent control. Rent control is at an end and so its stabilising influence on the cost of living has ended. However, people receiving National Assistance have their rents paid for them and so that stabilising factor has been absent. For those reasons, and many others, the figures which the hon. Lady gave should not be taken at their face value.
  I want briefly to refer to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton. East (Mr. Philip Bell)—I am sorry that

  1215
  he is no longer present. One must congratulate him on being the only speaker in the debate not to have come from this side of the House. It is a very sad reflection on the state of mind of the Government party. The House is discussing provisions to be made for the poorest and weakest members of the community. That is a subject which should arouse concern in all parts of the House, irrespective of party, and it is significant that the benches opposite have been practically empty for the whole of the debate and that only one Member has spoken from the Government side of the House.
  The hon. and learned Member said that there had been a recent development of pessimism about poverty—I think that that is a fair interpretation of what he said. He argued that in the good old days people made provision for their own old age by saving and so on, and that now we are being pessimistic. He should consult his history books. Since 1601 there has been public provision for extremes of poverty caused by old age, sickness, or other things. Even before that, provision was made by monasteries and other bodies. It is not a new problem.
  Our ideas and policies have changed, but the problem has been with us for centuries. I make that comment because the hon. Member's views are typical of the myth often spread by reactionary people, that, in some way or other, the development of the Welfare State has bean sapping our vitality.
  I want to follow the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Dr. King) who complimented the staff of the National Assistance Board on their welfare work. We have all met examples of officers of the Board who have gone far beyond their purely statutory duties and who have done a great deal, for example, in encouraging old people to take advantage of local welfare services, introducing them to Darby and Joan clubs and so on. However, most of us recognise that among some people, especially old people, there is still a reluctance to go to the National Assistance Board. I am sure that all of us in our constituencies have met that attitude and I hope that we all do what we can to combat it.
  1216
  A further stage in the development of National Assistance should be the abolition of the National Assistance Board as such and the merging of its work into a wider Ministry of Social Welfare, so that the step from having a basic National Insurance benefit to having it supplemented by National Assistance would be taken in the same Department and in the same building and so that the people concerned would not feel that that step was as large as now appears to them to be the case. We should investigate that whole problem to see what other administrative measures can be taken to make it easier for those who need assistance to get it.
  I share the disappointment expressed by many of my hon. Friends about the rates of assistance and the small increases which are to be given. That disappointment reflects the disappointment of many thousands who are affected. Let us remember that not everyone is well informed on the details of this legislation and that many pensioners will have read in the Press that they are to get an increase in pension of 10s. for single people and 15s. for married couples. They will have a shock when they find that if they are drawing a supplement to their retirement pension, they will have only 5s. or 9s., and that if they are smokers it will be only 2s. 8d. or 6s. 8d., as the case may be.
  If I had to give a figure, I should have liked to see the Government proposing increases in National Assistance rates similar to those which have been approved for National Insurance rates, in other words, 10s. for a single person and at least 13s. for a married couple. In suggesting that, I point out that since January, 1956, the basic National Assistance rate for a single person has been the same as the National Insurance rate, 40s., and 2s. higher for a married couple, 67s. as against 65s.
  From next January it will be 5s. less for a single person and 4s. less for a married couple, so that many people who are getting these small supplementary pensions at the moment will lose the right to them. These fluctuations have occurred before. If we look at the figures in respect of National Assistance grants we see that there was a drop in the number of grants paid in April and May,

  1217
  1955, after the last rise in National Insurance rates and that then, month by month, the figures crept up again until they reached their present level.
  When changes of this sort take place people who have hitherto been able to get supplementary pensions find that they can no longer get them, but later they may again qualify. This movement in and out of the National Insurance field causes much confusion and resentment, and it is not much use for members of the Government to put forward sophisticated arguments illustrating the way in which one benefit is worked out against another. People will say, "The Government have given me something with one hand and they are going to take it away with the other."
  This will be a specially difficult problem next year. Some people will come out of the Assistance range in January but will qualify for it again in April and in the months following, when the large increases under the Rent Act come into effect. I hope that some of the people whose cases are on the borderline and who lose their right to Assistance in January will realise that if their rent goes up later they will again qualify, and that the Board's officers will do what they can to explain the position to the people concerned.
  There is a case for saying that so long as our basic rates of National Insurance pensions are so low, and so long as we do not have a national superannuation scheme which gives proper provision for old age, National Assistance rates should at least equal the basic National Insurance rates, so that people will at least have that to draw, plus the amount of their rent. We should see that people do not fall below that level of subsistence. If that principle could be recognised it would be a step towards further improvements in the standard of living of the people of whom we are talking tonight.
  As other speakers have said, those drawing National Assistance are not the workshy and shiftless people which reactionary elements sometimes pretend they are. The House has been reminded that the Board has ample powers to take steps against those who fail to maintain themselves and their dependants. For people who are able to work the payment of National Assistance is made contingent on their registering for work and is paid
  1218
  through the employment exchange. In the main we are talking of people who are in real need, and who are in that position through no fault of their own.
  We know that the largest group are those who are drawing National Insurance benefits but cannot live on them. Discussion has largely centred on those people, and I have concentrated on their needs myself. But there are other groups who do not qualify for any benefits under National Insurance, and even when we have a national superannuation scheme—as I believe we shall—and improve the National Insurance scheme, some people will still slip through the net who will need the special kind of assistance which can be given only if it is based upon some sort of means test administered by the National Assistance Board or through some other arrangement.
  There are many wives who are separated from their husbands, and who have young children to bring up; there are unmarried mothers, and many other categories of people who, although they are in need, would not qualify for National Insurance benefit, but would need assistance given by the Board. We are dealing with people who have plenty or problems to worry about apart from having an impossible job to make ends meet. In the years that lie ahead one of our priorities should be to make more adequate provision for people in these categories.
  I realise that I am speaking with the glorious irresponsibility of a back bencher, who does not have to think in terms of the cost, but I suggest that if, in the years ahead, our national product goes up and we become a more prosperous community, we should aim at giving these people a larger share of the cake. Not long ago a member of the Government spoke of doubling our standard of living in twenty-five years. I am sufficient of an optimist to believe that that is possible, but I would add that in order to achieve that situation we need a change both of policy and of Government, and I am optimistic about that as well. I believe that we shall have a change of both.
  If we double our standard of living, or increase it materially, the extra wealth that we produce as a community ought not to go only to the owners of capital and to the workers in work; it should

  1219
  go to the whole community. We are here discussing about 2¼ million people—the poorest and the weakest members of our community—and one of the tests of our civilised standards in the years ahead will be our solution of the question whether we can make better provision for them.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: I should like to endorse the remarks which my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham. North (Mr. Prentice) has made. Like him. I only wish that the Ministers responsible for the introduction of this legislation could understand some of the difficulties, anxieties and distress of those living on National Assistance. My hon. Friend referred to the Lord Privy Seal's optimism in saying that the standard of living could be doubled in twenty-five years. If hon. Members were in receipt of twice the income of the people affected by the legislation that we are passing tonight, I wonder how any of them would begin to try to spend it so that he lived decently and comfortably. If we doubled it we should be giving to the married couple £7 12s. I wonder whether hon. Members can visualise what their lives would be like if they suddenly had to try to meet all the commitments involved in keeping a house open with a meagre income of that kind.
  I was in a home a month ago, talking to a couple who were in receipt of National Assistance, when the light bulb fused. They did not have another bulb in the house and they had not the money to get one. I went out in my car and brought two. Little things like that amount to economic crises for these people. An electric light bulb may go; a bowl may be broken or a pair of shoes may require mending—such things are perpetually happening, and for the people with whom we are concerned it is a struggle every day, week in and week out, for fifty-two weeks a year.
  I have never been able to understand why, whenever we are trying to do something for people in this category, we count every penny—measure it to the last farthing—as though it were gold that we were paying out instead of coppers. And it is coppers in this case, the married couple who do not smoke receive 9s. extra a week. With all the increases that there have been in the cost of living
  1220
  in the last two years, the increase is 9s. a week. By the time these scales become operative it will be two years since those in receipt of National Assistance obtained any improvement in their scales. In two years there has been an increase of 9s. to cover all the rises in the cost of living which these people have had to meet just as much as everybody else in regard to coal, electricity, food, clothes—and one could go through the whole gamut of commodities.
  Speaking at a meeting on Saturday I asked if anybody could tell me anything that had gone down since the Tories had been in office. One member of the audience said, "Two things have gone down—the value of the and the stock of the Tories in the country." Those are the only two things that have gone down. Everything else has gone up, and yet these people are to have only 9s. more to meet all those additional expenses.
  In view of the perpetual rises in the cost of living, I want to ask the Minister why he thinks that those who are at the bottom of the ladder should receive the least. If we examine the increases in retirement pensions for married couples we find that they have benefited by 15s. over a period of more than two years, whereas the married couple in receipt of National Assistance have benefited by only 14s. In other words, they are, relatively speaking, a shilling worse off.
  I cannot understand the kind of mind that believes that those without resources should not be equally as well treated as those with resources. It means, for example, that a retired civil servant with a pension of £1,500 a year will receive the full increase. But a miner who has worked during the lean and bitter years, with no opportunity to make provision for his old age; who is dependent solely on the minimum pension rights and has to seek National Assistance, will get only 5s. I think that a disgrace to a nation which is willing to spend so much in other directions.
  I agree that many people are reluctant to go to the National Assistance Board. Many people still think it is like the old Poor Law. But I always advise my constituents that there is a difference between the two. In the old days there was a means test to see how much could be taken from a person. But the inquiry

  1221
  under the National Assistance machinery is to see how much can be given; and there is a vast difference between being questioned to see how much one may receive and being questioned to see how much should be taken away.
  A further problem I would like to raise relates to men and women who ate victims of industry, those receiving industrial Injuries pensions. They are no longer able to follow their own normal employment and may have been told to seek lighter work. But many are of an age when employers are not prepared to employ them and they cannot find alternative work. When their unemployment benefit is exhausted they are compelled to go to the National Assistance Board where they find that only £l of what they are receiving by way of pension is disregarded for the purposes of National Assistance. These people, who may have been injured in the service of the nation, eventually find themselves among the poorest of the poor. I hope: that the Minister will advise the Board to disregard a larger amount of what they are receiving in the way of hardship allowance or pension. If the right hon. Gentleman does not deal with this matter, sooner or later there will be a big outcry, and some Government will have to resolve the difficulty.
  Like other hon. Members, I wish to pay tribute to the officers of the Board as distinct from the members. Miserable and mean though the scales may be, I know from experience that the officers who have the job of administering the Regulations do so with a sympathy and wisdom which one sometimes feels is lacking among those responsible for framing the Regulations. The officers do what they can, but they are limited in their endeavours by what is done in the House. I think it disturbing that today, when this country is supposed to be doing so well, and after five years of Tory Government and the promise that our finances would be restored and we should become great once again, we are prepared to devote to the poorest and weakest section of the community only the miserable amounts denoted by these scales.
  Some day poverty will not be a disgrace. Some day the poor will not be despised. Some day we shall realise that they are human beings with stomachs
  1222
  which need filling and bodies that require clothing and that they need accommodation which it is not beneath human dignity to occupy. I do not think that day will come under the present Administration, but I believe that it will be a little nearer after the next General Election.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I wish to pay a tribute to the officials of the National Assistance Board in the Edinburgh area. I have found them most helpful, but they are bound by the decisions of this House and the instructions of the Board. I do not think that anyone examining what we are doing tonight can be very proud. We are, of course, pleased at being asked to increase these scales, but nobody would suggest that the increases are so magnificent as to cause us any pride. On the contrary, I consider that they are a cause for anxiety and for a little heart searching.
  Why is it that a vast number of people dependent on National Assistance have to live in the circumstances in which they now find themselves? During the debate on the National Insurance Bill I expressed my feelings forcibly on this subject. I referred to a report of the needs of the aged in Edinburgh, an excellent and highly technical report, not given to exaggeration, prepared by members of the Public Health Department in Edinburgh and the Department of Public Health and Social Medicine, University of Edinburgh.
  Some of the needs and the services required by these old people are interesting and give us cause for thought. Of 17,000 needs of the aged in Edinburgh, 3,000 are for meals on wheels. The Report states that there are 3,000 people in Edinburgh requiring meals on wheels. These are the elderly people, many being in receipt of public assistance. This does not express the total need and the Report says that there is evidence that the elderly are under-nourished. This is not a propagandist publication. It refers to the Report of Hobson and Pemberton in 1955. It says:
  "As we did not ask for data on under-nourishment, we cannot be sure of having all those who were under-nourished included in the recommendation."
  So there were more than the 3,000 recommended in the Report requiring meals on

  1223
  wheels. I admit at once that not all those people required that service simply because of under-nourishment. Some required it because of loneliness and some because they were not fit to prepare their own meals. The Report also says:
  "It is, however, certainly probable that many of those recommended for whom no obvious signs of inability to prepare meals were shown (i.e. mobile and fit for all tasks) are indeed people whom the interviewer recommended purely on a nutritional basis."
  Surely at this time in 1957, with a Prime Minister telling us "We have never had it so good," to have hundreds of people in the City of Edinburgh—that is only one of many large cities in the country—under-nourished is a startling indictment of the Government. It is something we ought seriously to consider. In these proposals a person living alone is offered 5s. a week more. What a magnificent sum! He cannot even buy a bag of coal with that. It would not buy half a bag of coal, not in London certainly. Even a married couple can scarcely afford an extra bag of coal out of this increase.
  It is all right for the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to give us statistics; all of them may be important, but they are meaningless unless they are interpreted in terms of how people live. People live in terms of bags of coal, pints of milk and that sort of thing. How many pints of milk will 5s. buy? How much additional butter, additional bread or additional meat will 5s. buy? Housewives know about this much more than we do, but anyone with any knowledge at all knows that it is really ridiculous to give such a small amount when thousands of people in Edinburgh require meals on wheels, many of them for nutritional reasons.
  I do not know whether the Minister will tell us, as I think the hon. Lady once did say, that this is because these people do not know how to spend their money. I hope we shall not hear that tonight. It is certainly a curious situation if when a person reaches the age of 60 or 65 he has to become an expert dietitian in order to know how to live out of the money he gets. There is something wrong with 'that. This Report also tells us that 3,000 or 4,000 people require changes in accommodation. It says:
  …there emerges a compelling picture of poor housing…
  1224
  and also enumerates all the difficulties under which these people are living. In Edinburgh the Corporation is building houses for the aged, but they are at much dearer rentals than many of these people have to pay at present. Therefore, if the aged and those in receipt of National Assistance are to take advantage, they require the full help to enable them to do so without limit. The Report follows a report previously prepared dealing with certain other factors concerning the aged in Edinburgh and amplifies my experience on going round my constituency that the condition under which many of these people are compelled to live is deplorable.
  It is not good enough to say, "Well we have increased this amount by such and such per cent., which is slightly more than the cost-of-living figure." I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that that cost-of-living figure is misleading. Everyone knows that the weighting figures ought to vary for every category of person. The weighting figures for the aged are vastly different from those of other people. There ought to be a special cost-of-living index prepared for the aged. It should also be remembered that the productive capacity of this country has increased since the years about which the Government are so fond of talking when the Labour Government were in power. That capacity increased under a Labour Government very much from 1946 to 1951. It has not increased so much since then thanks to this Government, but it still has increased. Surely these people who paved the way for that increase are entitled to their share of the increased wealth of the country.
  When we talk of doubling the standard of living, we ought to be talking in terms of the poorest as well as the well-to-do. In my view, the standard of the poorest people ought to be raised much faster than that of those who are better off. That is social justice. That is the way we ought to be looking at these things. If we cared to rearrange our structure of personal incomes rather differently, we could give these people a satisfactory standard of life without injuring anyone very much; in fact, I doubt whether it would cause any great hardship to any section of the country. Of course, the Government have no will to redistribute our national income more fairly and to give poorer people a better deal. Almost

  1225
  every measure they undertake increases the gaps in society. They do less for the poor always.
  Even in Measures such as we have recently considered, like the National Insurance Bill and these Regulations dealing with National Assistance, the Government follow the usual policy of the poorest getting the least. That is the philosophy of the party opposite. I cannot remember an occasion on which the Government have come forward with something which would benefit poor people more than it would benefit well-off people. Always it is the well-to-do who benefit most. I do not understand that philosophy at all.
  We have a duty to these people. They have contributed their fair share to the greatness of this country. They have fought for this country in its difficulties, some of them to the injury of their health and the detriment of their careers. They have suffered unemployment in years gone by and suffered poverty. Some of them have brought up families of five or six children in conditions of immense difficulty and worked sixteen hours a day to rear those children to become good citizens capable of making a worthwhile contribution to society. At the end of the day we tell them that they must live on £2 5s. a week because they have not been able to save and because they have not worked where there was a superannuation scheme. We tell them that if there are two of them, they can live on £3 16s. a week. Anyone who has tried to live on that knows how difficult it is.
  Incidentally, the Government ought to consider once again the proposal very frequently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) that they should disregard for National Assistance purposes the additional increments earned as a result of working after 65. While I am glad that we are increasing these scales, they are not being increased sufficiently. My views on these increases are the same as my views on the pension increases; they are far too small and very, very late, because they ought to have been made long ago.
  7.11 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: This has been a short but I think extremely interesting debate. We have been discussing not merely figures of increases and comparisons but the welfare and well-being of over two million people.
  1226
  In the main, these are the old, the chronic sick, the unemployed and the children of these men and women.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), speaking first in the debate from this side of the House, dealt with a great many figures and asked the Minister to reply to a number of questions about them. I will not go over them, but I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to give the answers requested.
  One interesting feature of the debate has been that only one back bencher from the Government side has participated. That was the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell). I noted his words. He spoke about "by own earnings and own skill saving enough for old age". He spoke about a defeatist attitude. He went on to talk about those who waste their substance and their health, and said that if they did this, the State took care of them. I have here a booklet which many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have received. It is a report from the City of Salford of a survey into the lives of the elderly people in Salford—a complete survey of every elderly man and woman in that city. In the report, we read these words:
  "One can only express the highest admiration of the indomitable spirit of the 'not so young' in this industrial dockland city, evident throughout the Survey, who having weathered the distress of two world wars; called up to bear the dire misery of poverty occasioned by the trade depression of the year preceding 1930 in which Salford suffered bitter experience to my knowledge, whilst I was in close touch with the people at that time relieving hardship and destitution; managed to afford every care to growing families, many of whom are now left alone in the eventide of life unable on their meagre incomes to afford themselves bare necessities to exist in any sort of comfort or purchase the common commodities such as bedding, coal, etc., which might at least give comfort to their bodies, the price of such severely minimising their purchasing power in this direction, even to preservation of a minimum standard."
  That is about the old people in Salford, and the report was published in April of this year. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East is not in his place, because I imagine that the old people of Bolton, and indeed of any other city or rural area in this country, are no different from the old people of Salford in the way their lives have been spent.
  Last week, when we were debating the National Insurance Bill, the Minister

  1227
  spoke time and time again about the substantial increases which that Bill would give. In opening the debate today, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the appreciably higher value, even for those losing the tobacco coupon, of what was being given under these Regulations. What is being given is 5s., or, if the tobacco coupon is taken away, 2s. 8d. Before I became a Member of Parliament I was a school teacher, and, in the context of how old people live today, if I had asked my pupils what figure of speech was either "substantial increase" in the context of the Bill or "appreciably higher value" in the context of these Regulations, I should have expected them to give me the figure of speech as hyperbole. It is nothing more than exaggeration to use words such as these to describe the increases which are to be given in the Regulations. If we put the small increases against the estimated saving of £8 million about which we were told last week, we realise more than ever how inadequate they are.
  As I said, during the debate we have been talking about the old, the chronic sick and the long-term unemployed—in the main, the weakest people in our community, the people who need all the help that we as their representatives in the House can possibly give them. I suggest to the Minister that, twelve years after the war, the question which we should be posing to ourselves today is not, "Are these new rates better in real value than those of 1948?", but "Are they adequate?". That has been brought out in various ways from the speeches made from this side of the House.
  I contend that these new rates are not adequate, particularly in the light of the researches which have been made in cities. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) quoted the survey which had been made in Edinburgh into the lives of old people. I have here the survey which has been made in Salford. A survey has been made in Rutherglen, in Scotland. Wherever a survey has been made in those years, we have undoubted evidence of the misery of the lives of our old people.
  If the Minister replies tonight by telling us how much better are the provisions in these Regulations than those of 1948, then I tell him that that is no answer at all to the misery and the poverty of our old,
  1228
  our chronic sick and our unemployed. Again I stress a point which has been stressed time and time again on this side of the House—that it is nonsense to quote the increase in these rates against the increase in the retail index.
  I think of those old people who live near me. I think of the long-term unemployed, whose problems were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). I will deal with them later. I think of the kind of lives which they are living. I can see the old and the chronic sick with their homes becoming poorer and poorer and they themselves becoming more miserable as each month passes. I am certain that if we examined this question from the adequacy of the amounts rather than from these useless comparisons—useless if we are talking to the old people—we might get from the National Assistance Board much better rates than we have in these Regulations.
  There is a further point that was made by the Parliamentary Secretary. She said that in a previous debate doubts were voiced from this side of the House about discretionary allowances, and the fear was expressed that the National Assistance Board had been tightening up on discretionary allowances. She quite rightly gave today figures to show that this was not the case. She said that the discretionary powers were used more freely in 1956 than ever before. So freely were they used that, in 1956, 45 per cent. of all those who were receiving help from the National Assistance Board had also given to them discretionary allowances.
  I should like the Minister to tell us the number of discretionary grants that are given. There are weekly discretionary allowances and there are discretionary grants given for clothing, bed clothing and so on. I should like to know what has been happening about discretionary grants, and whether we have had the same increase in discretionary grants as we have had in discretionary allowances. I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that when she said that there had been no tightening up of these allowances she gave us adequate proof that the basic payments are completely inadequate. Surely, if it comes to the stage that 45 per cent. of all people in receipt of National Assistance must be given extra by the National Assistance Board in the form of discretionary allowances, the basic rates are completely inadequate.

  1229
  Again, I would say to the Minister that she should examine very carefully why so many discretionary allowances have to be paid. Like other hon. Members on this side of the House—and as, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary did I should like to pay my tribute to the area officers and the other officers of the National Assistance Board. In my own constituency I find that they are most helpful in all the work that they do for these people.
  I turn to a point which has been raised on various occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow. He has always been disturbed about the fate of the industrially disabled men. There are many of them in my constituency. These men are in the difficulty described by my hon. Friend because the Government decided to delete Section 62 of the Industrial Injuries Act. When that decision was taken, we on this side of the House made a strong plea that Section 62, which had been put in as a temporary measure when the Act was introduced, ought to be made permanent; but instead of making it permanent the Tory Government decided to delete it.
  Those of us, like the hon. Member for Jarrow, who have a great many industrially disabled men in our constituencies find that these men are perfectly willing to work. They would love to find a job, not just for the money which it would give them, although that is important, but because it is much better from their own point of view to be in work. In my area, they cannot find work. I am sure that is the position in many other areas, so by the previous action of the Government they lost their unemployment benefit, and when they went to the National Assistance Board many of them found that they could not get a penny from the Board. No care at all is taken of these people under the provisions of these Regulations.
  I would say to the Minister responsible that perhaps there was nothing that he could do for them in these Regulations, but since he has found how this has been working he ought now to have discussions with the other Ministers concerned to find if it is possible to reinstate the former Section 62 of the Industrial Injuries Act.
  1230
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) referred to two specific categories of people. I would say again, particularly of the blind, that they are the weakest in our community. They have always had a rate higher than the ordinary rate with which we are dealing in these Regulations. Under these Regulations, although an increase has been made in the basic rates, no increase has been made for the blind. If the Minister is basing the present increases on the rise in the cost of living—and the Parliamentary Secretary in her speech did try to make that out—then there has been a rise in the cost of living for the blind, and it seems to me they ought to have had an increase under these Regulations. Concerning tubercular patients, the differential has been lessened under the Regulations, and I should like the Minister to tell us why.
  My right hon. Friend asked about the question of rents. We should like the Minister to give a specific assurance tonight that, no matter what the increases in rents may be under the Rent Act, every old person who is on National Assistance, or those who are to go on National Assistance because of the increases under the Rent Act, will have the full rent given to them. This is important, because I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary made it clear that, whatever the rent may be, it will be paid.
  Finally, I would say, on a matter which has been mentioned by one or two of my hon. Friends, that when we look at the number of people on National Insurance who are in receipt of National Assistance and the number of people on unemployment benefit who are in receipt of National Assistance, we can come to only one conclusion, that the rates for National Insurance sickness benefit and the rates for unemployment benefit are too low. It seems to me that there must be much more examination of these matters than there was by the Government when they produced the Bill which we discussed last week. When we consider the number of old-age pensioners who are receiving the full old-age pension, the contributory pension, and at the number of those old people on National Assistance we must come to the conclusion that the pensions are too small.
  I do not think that we can go on any longer looking at this in just a piecemeal way. It must be examined radically, and

  1231
  the Labour Party has been doing that. We have given to the British public for examination and discussion a policy statement on pensions and superannuation. We are now engaged in examining the consequences on National Insurance and unemployment benefit. I wish that the Government had done the same thing—and what a much better position they were in than were those of us on the working party on that national superannuation scheme.
  By this time the Government ought to have been able to have brought forward proposals that would have made whatever these people were getting in benefit adequate to meet today's needs. I press the Minister to take account of all the points of view put forward by the Opposition, and to realise that our old people, even with the miserable increases that are given under these Regulations, will still be living a life of poverty and hardship.
  I want again to quote from the report on the Salford survey. It says:
  "To those in doubt of the plight of elderly in 1957, following this total survey, I ask 'take a walk with me on the daily round' and see in cold reality homes where replacements or repair of footwear is 'luxury'; a hot mid-day meal for six days a week almost a miracle; warm winter clothes (so necessary in this part of Lancashire to old people) a mere fancy; see cinders sifted minutely from old fireplaces until they are reduced to fine ash…the ability to buy sufficient coal alone I feel might be the relevant inducement for them to remain in their own homes with at least the comfort of warmth."
  As I said in the beginning, I am convinced from my own contacts, particularly with the old people and the chronic sick, that that is the kind of life they are living, and no figures proving that this Government have been better than a previous one will be any comfort to them. If the Minister cannot do anything about these Regulations, I hope that new ones will soon come from the National Assistance Board, so showing that the Board and the Government have really taken account of these serious surveys among our old people and are ready to make life more tolerable for them and to allow them to live in dignity in their advanced years.
  7.34 p.m.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): If one compares the course of this debate with that on similar Regulations on
  1232
  the last two or three occasions on which the assistance scales have been increased, one is very much struck by how much calmer and more objective has been today's debate. I am sure that that is a good thing because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) very rightly reminded us, this is a matter of major importance to the people directly concerned and, indeed, to the community as a whole. It is one which I am sure the House is right to take, as it has today, calmly and objectively, and not one that is helped if we get too passionate or too excited about it—
  Mr. Willis: It is not a question of passion. It is a question of poverty.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman is always passionate and I would except him from what I have said, but I think that the House as a whole is at its best in discussing a great and important issue if it does so calmly, and I would say to the hon. Gentleman that calmness is by no manner of means inconsistent with sincerity.
  Another interesting feature of this debate, which I thought very fair and proper, has been the tributes paid again and again to the officers of the Assistance Board for the humane and sensible way in which they administer this great system. I would, if I might, confirm those tributes. I believe that the way in which the system is administered is the best possible answer to the objection raised from time to time—and I think mentioned at any rate once today—that some people feel an unwillingness, even though they are qualified, to obtain help from the Board.
  I am perfectly certain that when people who have had that feeling have been able to overcome it they have certainly found that the Board's officers have treated them with humanity, discretion and fairness, and have learned, therefore, that their doubts and hesitations—however worthy and admirable—were completely unfounded.
  I will endeavour, first of all, to deal separately with a number of important issues that have been raised and then, if I may, devote the closing part of my remarks to an argument on the adequacy and propriety of our proposals.

  1233
  As it is somewhat extraneous to the main issue, let me first deal with the point put by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) a few moments ago. I think that her reference to Section 62 of the Industrial Injuries Act was really to Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, because, from the subject matter of her speech, I gathered that it was extended unemployment benefit that she had in mind.
  As the House knows, that Section was put originally in the 1946 Act—by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, of course for a limited period of five years. It allowed extended unemployment benefit over that period because it was then contemplated that there might be serious post-war unemployment. But I would stress that, from the beginning, it was intended to be a temporary provision to deal with a feared temporary situation which, in the mercy of Providence, did not arise here after the 1939–45 war.
  What was done in 1953 was to allow that Section to lapse, but, as the House remembers, to make a somewhat more generous provision for added days. In fact, the maximum period for which unemployment benefit can now be paid is up to 19 months, which is a longer period than under the old Act. I do not think that the hon. Lady's proposal to reverse the decision of 1953—or the intention of the 1946 Act—is a sound one, or one that is justified by the country's employment situation—
  Miss Herbison: The Minister is basing his case on the fact that we have full employment. What worries many of us, and what worried the Labour Opposition when the Government decided to allow Section 62 to lapse, was that in some areas there is still serious unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, These are the people who have suffered greatly, and I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that he must well remember when this Section was allowed to lapse the case that was put up from this side by those who had been responsible for the Act in the first instance.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That was a case that the House of Commons did not accept. The hon. Lady cannot avoid the fact that her own right hon. Friends brought forward this provision in the contemptation
  1234
  of large-scale unemployment, and in today's employment situation it is not sound or reasonable to argue that a provision specifically designed not for pockets of unemployment in certain areas but for large-scale unemployment is appropriate or necessary—
  Mr. B. Taylor: I am sure that were he here my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) would say that whilst Section 62 of the National Insurance Act was put in for a period of only five years, there was also provision that the whole Act should be subject to quinquennial review. I am quite certain that it was never in his mind that extended unemployment benefit should he abolished, as it was by the Government.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman, of course, was with his right hon. Friend at the time of the Act. I can only go by the statements published at the time of the intentions of the then Government. But it is perfectly clear that the provision was designed to deal with a situation which did not arise and which has not arisen. Therefore, the point is not a relevant contribution to thought on this matter.
  Mr. Fernyhough rose—
  Mr. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will give way to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr B. Taylor).
  Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman, who is now Lord Ingleby, was giving his observation about the lapsing of this provision and the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) pleaded for its retention.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am well aware of that. Indeed, I referred the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North to the debates in this House and to the fact that the House did not accept those arguments. My point, as the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, relates to the original intention in making this, as has been undisputed, a temporary provision compared with the permanent provision in the 1946 Act.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East raised very properly the question of how many people would be taken off National Assistance

  1235
  by the combined effect of the changes embodied in these Regulations and the improvement in National Insurance benefits which the House approved last week. It is difficult to give a precise figure because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the needs of people on National Assistance vary and fluctuate with varying circumstances.
  I suppose the best rough answer I can give him is to say that it would appear at first sight that those who will come off assistance altogether will be single people at present receiving assistance at 5s. or less, which is the difference between the increases in the National Insurance benefit and the National Assistance scales, and also married couples in receipt of 6s. assistance or less. The number in those two groups at the end of 1956 when the last calculation was made was about 92,000. Therefore, although I will not make any precise forecast, because, as I have said, these are figures that reflect all sorts of different circumstances, the number to come off National Assistance would not be greater than that. The main body, therefore, of the saving, on National Assistance resulting from increased expenditure on National Insurance benefits will be undoubtedly in connection with those who remain on assistance, although they will have less need for assistance owing to the improvement in National Insurance benefits.
  The right hon. Gentleman then said that the numbers on assistance in any event were too large. He will appreciate, of course, that the effect of these Regulations will be to make the numbers larger than they otherwise would be. It is sometimes said that the size of the number on assistance is of itself a severe criticism of social service administration generally. If assistance scales are raised, as they are being raised, and therefore more people brought within their possible scope, the effect is to offset in some measure the diminution in numbers on assistance which would have resulted if we had raised National Insurance benefits and left assistance as it was. It is the purpose of these proposals to improve the National Assistance scales, and the result will be that the numbers of those on assistance will be higher than they otherwise would be.
  1236
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the reference by the Assistance Board in the White Paper, which was laid at the same time as the Regulations, to the fact that the withdrawal of the tobacco token had been "taken into account." Those are the words of the White Paper. This factor was taken into account by the Board, as the terms of the White Paper clearly show, in deciding what improvement in the scales of assistance to propose. It would have been a matter for criticism of the Board if in making up its mind, as it is its duty to do under the Act, it had ignored the fact that some of the recipients of the benefits would be affected by the withdrawal of the tobacco tokens. The hon. Lady has given an estimate of the numbers who will be affected. The answer to the question of how this point was taken into account is in deciding upon the scales to recommend to the Government.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman and one or two of his hon. Friends asked about the treatment of rent by the Board in the context of the Rent Act. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that in the debate in the House on 1st August, I made a statement of the Board's intentions. Perhaps it would be convenient if I read that statement as it stands:
  "I am able to tell the House precisely the way the Board intends to handle this question of rents. I am informed that, except in cases where accommodation is shared by a son or daughter or other person in employment, and in a position to meet some of the increased rent, it is the intention of the Board to provide in an assistance grant for the full amount of any permitted increase in a conntrolled rent; and for any reasonable increase where the rent is not controlled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 1613.]
  That certainly does not mean that it would be the Board's duty to subsidise indefinitely payments of rents illegally or unlawfully claimed.
  Mr. A. E. Hunter: Could the Minister explain the word "reasonable". It is not clear to me what a "reasonable" amount is.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: "Reasonable", of course, is a word with which the House is familiar in Statutes, and hon. and learned Members have often favoured us with a great deal of prolonged wisdom on its precise interpretation. I am not, in the technical sense, learned. I leave to the House the untechnical aspects of the matter, with due modesty.

  1237
  I was almost about to say that the position is "reasonably" clear. Quite clearly, it would not be the Board's duty to pay a rent unlawfully demanded and which it would be within the power of the tenant to resist. I think that was an example which the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) put to me in the shape of a Question the other day. I am sorry if I misunderstood his question. The tenant must be expected to behave reasonably and not, because the Board is supporting him, to acquiesce in illegalities by his landlord or in unreasonable and extortionate demands. The tenant must behave as if he were himself responsible for the rent. That is probably the best guide.
  Miss Herbison: The Minister has spoken about reasonable increases and said that the Board will not pay any increase that is illegal. The point that is worrying Members on this side of the House and which we should like to have made clear is that under the Rent Act the landlord of a house that is decontrolled may choose any rent he likes to ask. If the landlord asks what the National Assistance Board considers is not a reasonable rent, then what happens to the old woman, old man or old couple?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think there is much difficulty about that if one applies the test I gave in reply to the hon. Lady's hon. Friend. They would be expected to behave as if it were their own money they were paying in rent. A tenant who is asked a rent far higher than that for which he can get comparable accommodation will not indefinitely remain and pay it. Nor would it be right to expect that the Board should finance him if he so desires to remain. But there would certainly be no immediate action by the Board any more than there would be immediate action by the individual. The Board would behave just as a reasonable individual would in dealing with his own personal affairs. [interruption.] I do not follow the hon. Lady when she suggests that it is shocking. I suggest that to take any other line in this matter would be shocking, and I think that when the hon. Lady studies in HANSARD what I have said—I am sure she desires to be fair minded—she will come to the same conclusion.
  Miss Herbison: When I say "shocking," I do not mean it from the point of view of the National Assistance Board or of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance; but it appears from the answer that we got from the Minister tonight that as a result of the provisions in the Rent Act there will be old men and women who, although they may think the rent is not reasonable and the National Assistance Board may think it is not reasonable, will have to leave their homes in which they have lived most of their lives and spend their last few years somewhere else. That is what I think is shocking.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady is not entitled to jump to any conclusion at all. I answered a question on a hypothetical basis put by her and her hon. Friends. I was not saying—nor is it, indeed, my duty to say—that in any particular case an unreasonable demand has been or will be made. I answered in order to deal with any possibility of anxiety on the part of any tenant concerned as to what was the Board's attitude.
  It is quite wrong for the hon. Lady in those circumstances to try to make a political point in a wholly different context merely because she does not happen to like the Rent Act. The hon. Lady will find when she studies my words in HANSARD tomorrow that I have made quite clear what is the attitude of the Board, and I have not urged or accepted or acquiesced in any view which she on political grounds may wish to take on the operation of the wise and beneficent Measure which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government introduced.
  Mr. Marquand: If in those circumstances a tenant thinks that the refusal of the Board to meet the rent which the Board deems unreasonable is wrong and mistaken, will he have the right of appeal to the tribunal which deals with Assistance appeals? Secondly, in these circumstances, if the Board finds that one of the people to whom it is paying an allowance is liable to be evicted, will the Board draw the attention of the local authority to the circumstances and ask the help of the local authority in finding different accommodation?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Board's general attitude is one of helpfulness to

  1239
  tenants, but it is not expert in the law of landlord and tenant. It has many other obligations and duties imposed upon it. Therefore, I can only say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman that each case will be looked upon on its merits, from the point of view of the desire of the Board to be helpful.
  As regards the question of appeal to the tribunal, that is a matter of law to which I would prefer not to give an answer off the cuff. It would depend upon the provisions of the Act, but I can certainly ascertain what legal opinion is on that matter and convey it to the right hon. Gentleman in due course if he is interested in it.
  The hon. Members for Mansfield and for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) referred to the question of National Assistance disregards—
  Mr. William Ross: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that last point—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have left it.
  Mr. Ross: Even if the right hon. Gentleman has left it, is he not prepared to go back to it?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have given way to a great many interventions on that point and I must now deal with some of the other matters raised.
  The hon. Members for Mansfield and Bedwellty referred to the question of National Assistance disregards. That does not strictly arise on these Regulations, which are designed to increase the scales of benefit. To alter the disregards would in any event involve not regulations but legislation. Therefore, I would only say this at this stage. The matter is not anything like as clear and obvious as the hon. Gentlemen seemed to think when they pressed their suggestion on the change in money values since 1948 and said that figures which had been right then could not for that reason be right now.
  The difficulty about the disregards is this. Ex hypothesi if we increase them we are providing more money for those less in need than others because they have some other income to be disregarded. That is why it has been the policy since 1948 of successive Governments to put into the assistance scales
  1240
  themselves, thus helping those most in need, such money as they think proper to provide, rather than to amend the disregards which, in the nature of things, give money to those at any rate less in need than others. That is all that I can usefully say at this stage on that admittedly very interesting and not uncomplicated matter.
  The hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) raised the question of the provision of additional payments for blind persons and persons who give up their work to undergo treatment for tuberculosis. We are preserving the full differential of 20s., but the hon. Gentleman is quite right—we are not increasing that differential. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North was quite wrong when she said that no increase was being given for the blind or the tuberculous. I think those are the words the hon. Lady used.
  Miss Herbison: On the question of tubercular patients, I said that although there was an increase, the differentiation was not so big as it had been previously.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the hon. Lady studies HANSARD she will see that she said in a moment of natural eloquence that there was no increase for the blind.
  Miss Herbison: I referred to the tubercular.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They are being treated in exactly the same way. They are both getting precisely the same increase as all other recipients of National Assistance. The hon. Member for Tottenham is quite right. The differential itself is not being increased. I thought the hon. Member for Tottenham fell into error when he said that it always had been on previous occasions.
  Sir F. Messer: Not always. I quoted the dates.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In fact, it was not so increased in 1950 or 1951. It was in 1952 and 1956. We did consider it in this context, but of course, as the hon. Gentleman will recall from his own experience, this is not an additional payment which has so precise a relationship to changing prices as have the main scales themselves, which is no doubt the reason why on two previous occasions the differential was not increased.

  1241
  In fact, the margin is not the result of any precise estimate of the special expenses attached either to blindness or to tuberculosis. If in a particular case such expenses resulting from either amount to more than the 20s. differential a week, the Board's discretionary powers are available and can be used to allow more. By way of example, since the hon. Gentleman spoke I have obtained the figures of the tuberculosis cases where an extra payment is being made. Out of the 28,000 such cases in the last year for which we have figures, 5,700 were receiving an additional supplement.
  As I say, I fully understand the point of view which the hon. Gentleman has put, and I would say to the House and to those interested outside that the decision on this occasion not to increase the differential but to move only to the extent to which the scales generally have been raised certainly does not indicate any desire not to leave it quite open for future occasions whether the differential should be further increased or not. It relates only to these Regulations. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because I believe it has caused some concern on those grounds among people interested in this matter outside.
  The hon. Member for Bedwellty raised the question of a separate pensioners' index, as did one or two other hon. Members. I will say in the first place that indices of this sort are not my Departmental responsibility. They are published by the Minister of Labour and National Service. We have studied the document, which the right hon. Gentleman, I think, also had in front of him, on the recent inquiry into pensioners' expenditure. It is perfectly clear that preparation of such an index would not necessarily be either easy or satisfactory. One clear result of that report is to bring out very clearly from the specimen of cases how often retirement pensioners are in households with other income, perhaps with other members of the household with income, and that of itself makes the preparation of a separate index of perhaps less value than may appear at first sight. In any event, we have been giving some study to this document, but I am frankly doubtful, I must say to the House, on consideration whether the production of a separate index of this sort would really be valuable or helpful.
  Dr. King: Were not we informed over twelve months ago that the National Assistance Board itself had such an index and was using it?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what the hon. Member was informed twelve months ago. I can only say that it is the Assistance Board's duty under the Act to get as much information as will help it to do that duty.
  Mr. Ross: On a point of order. I have been looking through the scales. I do not see any reference at all to an index. I was wondering, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you would allow me, if I decide to follow the right hon. Gentleman, who would not allow me to intervene to ask a question a few moments ago, to carry on this discussion about something which I do not see in the Regulations at all. Will that be in order?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): It will not be if it is not in the Regulations, but a passing reference to it would be tolerated.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to you for your kindness, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because, as the House is aware. I did not myself introduce this subject. I think at least three hon. Members opposite raised it. It is a point of general interest, and I think I should have been guilty of some discourtesy if I had not attempted to reply.
  Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Minister has just said it is a point of general interest. Does that mean you will allow speeches to be carried on in relation to a point of general interest?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that it was in order because it was a point of general interest. He said merely that it was a point of general interest.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should have been guilty of gross impertinence to the Chair if I had ventured to express an opinion as to whether something was in order or not. I was merely paying a tribute, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to your habitual kindness and forbearance. I think I have dealt with the point now and I will pass from grounds the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was good enough to warn me off.

  1243
  I propose now, as I promised I would, to say a word or two about the scales. As the House knows, under the Act of 1948 the initial responsibility is based. I think very properly and appropriately, on the Assistance Board. On its past record in this matter, in proposing the higher increases which it has proposed and which successive Governments have adopted, I think it has fully merited the confidence of the House and of the country.
  It has, as I said in reply to an interjection, many sources of knowledge of this subject, certainly not confined to statistical material. Indeed, I felt a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said a few moments ago, when he said that real knowledge of how people live is at least as valuable as statistical material. That is available to the Board, because its officers are in direct contact with the people concerned, not only in the Board's offices, but through the continual visiting in their homes of persons on assistance or applying for it. Thus the Board has very direct knowledge of the conditions of the people requiring assistance, and I think that that is a very valuable factor in the matter. This knowledge is not confined to the Board's officers. The Board's members themselves are constant in their visiting in various parts of the country, and I think the House ought to be grateful to them for the immense amount of work they put in in that respect.
  Then we come to these proposals, the sixth increase, as I said, since 1948. The Board, in putting forward these proposals at this time, is following the policy it has operated since 1952 of proposing increases before the value has fallen to the 1948 value. On earlier occasions, as the House will recall, the value fell below the initial value before the proposal for an increase was made.
  The present position—before the increases come into effect at the end of January, if Parliament authorises them—under the scales at the moment is that in money terms they are 67 per cent. above 1948, compared with a movement of the Interim Index of Retail Prices over the same period of 52 per cent.
  Mr. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the exact date when these calculations
  1244
  were made, because he will appreciate that since the announcement was made of the new scales the cost of living index has increased by one point?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: These calculations are just about as up to date as they could be in time to be delivered to this House today. Of course they are up to date.
  Mr. Ross: But when were they made?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not going to say the day of the week. They take into account all the latest information, and they do provide, as I say, for a 67 per cent. increase in cash value above 1948, compared with a 52 per cent. movement in the Interim Index of Retail Prices.
  I was warned by one or two hon. Members that I must not on any account consider the 1948 scales as adequate, and, indeed, one or two hon. Members indicated great indignation. I can only say this, that when they were put forward they were recommended as being adequate.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), then the Parliamentary Secretary at my present Department, said, in introducing them:
  "The new scale is, therefore, intended to provide a reasonable standard of living for those requiring long-term assistance."
  A little later he said:
  "The scales of requirements allow an appreciable margin over bare subsistence, since it is desired that no one should be denied a reasonable standard of living."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1948; Vol. 452, C. 559 and 564.]
  I think it is fair to take that, not as an ultimate solution, but as a base from which subsequent calculations can develop, and on that it is clear, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, that they do provide a substantial improvement over the 1948 level.
  The new rate for a single householder of 45s., even allowing for his being a smoker and losing the 2s. 4d. value of the token, will be 77.8 per cent. above the 1948 level, against an increase in the index of retail prices of 52 per cent. to which I have just referred. Similarly, even in what one may call the extreme case, that of a married couple who are both smokers—I think one hon. Member opposite, quite rightly, put that as the extreme case—they will still be 78.3 per cent. in cash terms up on 1948. If only

  1245
  one smokes, they will be 842 per cent. up on 1948. The non-smoking retirement pensioner, and, of course, the other beneficiaries of National Assistance who, not being retirement pensioners or non-contributory old-age pensioners, never were entitled to the tobacco tokens, will be, of course, proportionately better off—87·5 per cent. in cash terms above 1948 single: 90 per cent. married.
  Therefore, I can say, as my hon. Friend said, though she was criticised for saying so, that these do amount to a real improvement.
  So they do in respect of children. I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East on this aspect of the matter. The House will see that the proportionate increases for children may, if anything, be a little higher than those for adults, and there is, of course, the additional and not unimportant factor in the case of children of parents who are on assistance, that, in general, the local education authorities provide school meals free.
  But the improved scales are not, of course, the whole story. Reference has been made already in this debate, and properly, to the discretionary additions which, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told the House, cover in the latest year for which we have figures some 45 per cent. of the recipients.
  The hon. Lady sought to suggest that that was itself a criticism of the basic scales. I really do not follow her in that. These discretionary additions are designed to enable, and were designed from the beginning to enable, the Board to deal with the enormous variety of personal circumstances which are apparent among recipients of assistance, as they are among other members of our society. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is quite right in bringing out the variety of personal circumstances which arise and the danger of relying simply upon statistical scales. It is in this way that many of the difficulties to which reference has been made in the debate can be met.
  I was asked about lump sum grants. In 1956, there were 138,000 of these, very often, as has been suggested, for clothing. The use both of the discretionary additions and the lump sum payments indicates that we are not simply concerned with immutable scales which
  1246
  may not in all circumstances meet the needs of individuals and families but that we are concerned with scales which, in general, provide the basis on which these things can be dealt with in the sensible and flexible way in which the Board's officers deal with them.
  A comparison was made with National Insurance rates. I do not think that that is a very useful comparison because one is not comparing like with like. National Insurance scales are complete in themselves. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has reminded us, National Assistance scales are exclusive of rent and can, and do, have rents added to them in the case of householders. Therefore, when one contrasts the level of National Insurance with National Assistance it is not a very useful comparison, unless one adds a second figure, varying in individual cases, for rent. Nor is a comparison very useful when one remembers the discretionary additions to assistance to which I have referred. Therefore, we cannot form a useful view of the right level of assistance scales simply by comparing them with National Insurance or by arguing that we should raise assistance scales, exclusive of rent, to the National Insurance level which does not have a rent addition.
  As I have said, these are the sixth in the line of proposals which the Board has put forward for improvement in these scales. It is very much a matter of judgment, in the first place for the Board and in the second place for the House, whether we have arrived at precisely the right figure. The House knows the Board well enough to know that it would not have put forward proposals without considerable thought and study. In accepting the proposals, Her Majesty's Government have given careful attention to what it is right in the circumstances to do. These scales provide an improvement where we all agree it is most needed. I very much hope that the House will give these draft Regulations its approval, so that we can operate these scales at the end of January at the same time as the National Insurance lone-term benefits come into effect.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  [26th November]
  WAYS AND MEANS

    POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY)
    Resolution reported,
    That provision be made, as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight,

    (a) for authorising the Treasury from time to time to issue out of the Consolidated fund, for application as appropriations in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, such sums (not exceeding in the whole the sum of seventy-five million pounds) as the Treasury may determine to be appropriate on account of expenses properly chargeable to capital account;

    (b) for authorising the Treasury, for the purpose of providing money for sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund as aforesaid, or for repaying to that Fund all or any part of the sums so issued, to borrow—

    (i) by means of terminable annuities for a term not exceeding twenty years (such annuities to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office or charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund), or

    (ii) in any other manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939 (any securities created and issued for that purpose to be deemed for all purposes to be created and issued under the said Act of 1939), and for requiring sums so borrowed to be paid into the Exchequer;

    (c) for the repayment to the Exchequer, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office of sums issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Resolution (so far as those sums exceed the amount borrowed in the manner mentioned in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of this Resolution), together with interest thereon;

    (d) for the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer under paragraph (c) of this Resolution and the application of sums so issued in redemption or repayment of debt or, so far as they represent interest, towards meeting such part of the annual charges for the National Debt as represents interest;

    (e) for restricting the operation of subsection (1) of section one of the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1955, and repealing section two of that Act, and far the repayment into the Exchequer of certain sums issued under the said subsection (1).

    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Marples, and Mr. Powell.

    POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY)
    Bill to provide money for expenses of the Post Office properly chargeable to capital account; and for purposes connected therewith; presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

    NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (REPORTS AND ACCOUNTS)
    Select Committee appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer:
    Mr. Albu, Sir John Barlow, Mr. Blyton, Mr. Ernest Davies, Sir Ian Horobin, Mr. David Jones, Sir Keith Joseph, Colonel Lancaster, Sir Toby Low, Mr. Palmer, Sir Alexander Spearman. Mr. Wade, and Dame Irene Ward:
    Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries (Reports and Accounts) in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the Committee:
    Power to send for persons, papers and records:
    Power to report from time to time:
    Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved,
    That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
    Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eight o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Wages Councils Awards
  Wages Councils Awards
  Whitley Councils (Composition)
  Whitley Councils (Composition)
  Wage Negotiations (Procedure)
  Wage Negotiations (Procedure)
  BAHRAIN (IRANIAN CLAIM)
  BAHRAIN (IRANIAN CLAIM)
UNITED NATIONS
  Emergency Force
  Emergency Force
  Arab Refugees
  Arab Refugees
  EGYPT (PASSAGE OF SHIPS)
  EGYPT (PASSAGE OF SHIPS)
ROYAL NAVY
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Civilian Employees
  Civilian Employees
BRITISH ARMY
  Married Quarters
  Married Quarters
  Rifleman J. P. T. Moore
  Rifleman J. P. T. Moore
  Territorials (Civilian Employment)
  Territorials (Civilian Employment)
  Redundancy (Premature Retirement)
  Redundancy (Premature Retirement)
POST OFFICE
  Parcel Post (Chinese People's Republic)
  Parcel Post (Chinese People's Republic)
  Charges
  Charges
  Longbenton Estate, Newcastle-on-Tyne
  Longbenton Estate, Newcastle-on-Tyne
  Telephone Kiosk, North Woolwich
  Telephone Kiosk, North Woolwich
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Bomber Command (State of Readiness)
  Bomber Command (State of Readiness)
ROADS
  Tyne Tunnel
  Tyne Tunnel
  Traffic Lanes (Road Markings)
  Traffic Lanes (Road Markings)
  Speed Limit, Hildenborough
  Speed Limit, Hildenborough
  North Circular Road—Hendon Way (Fly-Over)
  North Circular Road—Hendon Way (Fly-Over)
RAILWAYS
  Branch Lines (Closure)
  Branch Lines (Closure)
  Working Conditions
  Working Conditions
  Fish (Transport)
  Fish (Transport)
TRANSPORT
  Highway Code
  Highway Code
  Driving and Traffic Examiners
  Driving and Traffic Examiners
  Goods Vehicles
  Goods Vehicles
  Isle of Wight (Southampton—Cowes Route)
  Isle of Wight (Southampton—Cowes Route)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Croydon Airport
  Croydon Airport
SHIPPING
  Conference on Maritime Law (Draft Conventions)
  Conference on Maritime Law (Draft Conventions)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Armed Forces (Pay and Conditions)
  Armed Forces (Pay and Conditions)
  Rocket Bases
  Rocket Bases
  Overseas Deaths (Burial)
  Overseas Deaths (Burial)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Retired Officers)
  Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Retired Officers)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Economic Aid
  Economic Aid
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Taxation and Social Services
  Taxation and Social Services
  Hire-Purchase Finance (Loans from Abroad)
  Hire-Purchase Finance (Loans from Abroad)
EDUCATION
  Rural Reorganisation, Wales (Building Programme)
  Rural Reorganisation, Wales (Building Programme)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Vaccination
  Vaccination
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Electrical Contracting Industry (Apprenticeship and Training Council)
  Electrical Contracting Industry (Apprenticeship and Training Council)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  INSTALLATION OF PARKING METERS
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY: 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, in view of the heavy national loss from traffic congestion, they can state when preliminary procedures will permit commencement of installation of parking meters.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, applications for parking meter orders have been made to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation by the Westminster City Council and the St. Marylebone Borough Council, and are now both sub judice. My right honourable friend hopes to be in a position to announce his decisions early in the New Year.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the erection of parking meters will do nothing to relieve congestion in London? All they will do is to take more money out of the pockets of the motorists. Is the noble Lord further aware that there is only one way to relieve congestion in the streets of London, and that is to build wider streets and prohibit the use of existing streets for garaging?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Lord and I argued this case at almost intolerable length on both stages of both Road Traffic Bills. Let us not deploy the case again. Let us wait and see what happens if and when these schemes are introduced. We may all get a shock.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's first reply, in view
  522
  of the tendency to increase double parking is it to be understood that the police have clear instructions as to what part of the breadth of the highway, if blocked by a car, attracts the wrong of obstruction, whereas the other parts, where parking takes place, do not attract an offence of obstruction? Where is the limitation?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite understand the question; I am not certain that I understand the muddle of traffic and parking regulations anyhow. I think it would be wiser if we awaited the result of these actions and inquiries, when all the matters to which the noble Lord has referred will be fully relevant.

  ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
  2.38 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING rose to call attention to the recent Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries (Cmnd. 218); and to move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, if I may be allowed to say so at the beginning, in returning, both figuratively and physically, from the foreign to the domestic scene, I am reverting to a theme with which I am afraid I have frequently afflicted your Lordships in past years. Those of your Lordships who have not had the leisure, or possibly the inclination, to study the Franks Report in detail, but may have taken the opportunity to examine the consolidated recommendations or groups of recommendations which are to be found at its end, may think that this Report is merely a series of somewhat abstruse legal reforms and proposals in regard to variations of practice and procedure. That view would be a great mistake. The Report is something far more than that, for underlying its recommendations there remain the basic principles of the liberty of the subject, of the rule of law and the need for the substance and the semblance of justice to be at one. Those principles are, I believe, now widely, if not perhaps

  523
  universally, accepted in this country and, as I have found on my not inconsiderable travels in the last six years, they are not the least of the reasons why Britain retains so large a measure of admiration, of respect and, indeed, of envy in so many countries of the world.
  But if we prize at their proper worth these essential elements in our thoughts and way of life, it is necessary that we should from time to time take a careful look at them, in order to be sure that they are still intact and immune from the encroachments of administrative expediency or the consequences of Parliamentary preoccupation with other perhaps superficially more pressing matters. The periodical application of the Geiger-counter of an impartial investigation is indeed needed in order to detect what mines may have been surreptitiously or inadvertently laid. It is for those reasons that the appointment of the Franks Committee was, I think, most widely and warmly welcomed, and now that their Report is before us we can truly say of the Chairman and members of that Committee that, in the austere Roman formula which said so little but meant so much, "They have deserved well of the State."
  It may be that the Franks Report has not the stately sweep of the Donoughmore Report, now a quarter of a century old but still one of the great State Papers of our time. If that be so, the fault lies not with Sir Oliver Franks and his colleagues, amongst whom were included three valued Members of your Lordships' House in the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but rather in the restricted—in my view, too restricted—terms of reference within which they were circumscribed. It seems an anomaly that although it is. I think, generally recognised that the appointment of this Committee arose out of what we know as the Crichel Down incident, yet by their terms of reference the Committee were precluded from consideration of precisely that type of inquiry.
  It must have been an intimidating prospect for this Committee to contemplate their task at the outset, because, for better or for worse, perhaps inevitably, there have grown up in increasing profusion in recent years, in some degree as
  524
  camp-followers of the Welfare State, a great number of miscellaneous tribunals concerned with a variety of subjects—National Insurance, transport, conscientious objectors, agriculture, rent, National Assistance and many more. Perhaps, in the circumstances of to-day, this is a situation only to be expected, even if it is somewhat deplored by some possibly reactionary-minded people. Perhaps it is accurate to say that these various tribunals have come into being under statutory power but without any overall system, without any precise correlation of practice and without any accord as to procedure. As I conceive it, the main task of the Franks Committee was to try to impart to all these miscellaneous bodies the greatest possible measure of logical order and consistency, although from the very diverse nature of the tribunals themselves it is perhaps asking too much to expect that any' comprehensive system of procedure and practice can be applicable to all.
  My Lords, the Committee set about that task, which is one for which I cannot but feel that Hercules himself would have surely applied for, and rightly received. overtime at the highest possible rate. But they have accomplished their mission promptly, painstakingly, effectively, and (except for one relatively minor dissension by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin), what is very important, unanimously. And that is in itself no mean achievement Since I put down this Motion before the Summer Recess two somewhat remarkable events have taken place. Her Majesty's Government, of their own initiative, promoted in another place, on October 31, a debate on the Report, and, perhaps even more unexpectedly, took the opportunity of that debate to expound the extent to which, and the manner in which, they were prepared to accept, and in due course to put into operation, a large number of the recommendations of the Committee. I have never known any Report propelled into Parliamentary space with such Sputnik-like speed, and I can only hope that it will not continue to revolve in circles but within a reasonable time will descend to earth in legislative form. For although a certain amount of progress can be made purely on administrative lines, there can be little doubt that legislation will be required to give full force to the Government's projects.
  Winding up the debate in another place the Attorney General pointed out that the total number of recommendations was 95, of which 71 have been either completely or broadly accepted by Her Majesty's Government; 8 have been accepted in some degree; 4 have not been accepted; and 12 must be reserved in whole or in part for further consideration. If I may say so, that seems to me to be a creditable score on the part of Her Majesty's Government in a matter of these considerable dimensions.
  It is not enough—as the Committee, in the forefront of their Report, recognise—to confine ourselves to occasional spasmodic inquiries into the workings of these various tribunals. Some permanent body, the Committee thought—and I agree—is necessary in order to keep them under constant and close observation. For that purpose the Committee, rightly, recommended that there should be established a Council on Tribunals, which should have, as I conceive it, the general function of keeping a watchful eye upon the operations of tribunals; of considering such matters as a code of practice and procedure to be adopted by tribunals; of examining the possibility of some award of costs to applicants before the tribunal; of being consulted before new tribunals are set up; and generally of advising Her Majesty's Government (because, as I understand it, the functions of this Council are advisory and not executive) over this very large and important ground. The Committee recommended that there should be two Councils on Tribunals, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. Her Majesty's Government's proposals have compressed those two bodies into one. I do not propose to argue the merits of that suggestion, but rather to leave it to the indignation of any noble Lords from Scotland who may wish to take the Government to task.
  There is one matter in connection with these Councils on Tribunals which, to my mind, is of considerable importance, and where there is a difference between the recommendations of the Committee and the proposals of the Government—that is in regard to the appointment, not of chairmen but of the members of tribunals. The Government and the Committee agree that the appointment of chairmen should be in the hands of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, but there is a divergence over the method of
  526
  appointment of members. The Committee's recommendation was that the members of a
  tribunal should be appointed by the Council on Tribunals. The Government disagree with that recommendation, and say that they should be appointed by the Minister concerned, after consultation with the Council on Tribunals. I confess that, in spite of my loyalty to my former colleagues, in this matter my view agrees with that of the Committee and not with that of the Government.
  I believe that in all these matters it is of the greatest importance that, from the very outset, the shadow of the Minister should not be over the tribunal, but that it should be seen by everybody who proposes to go before the tribunal that it is a completely unprejudiced body, deriving its authority not from the Minister who will be concerned with the result of the inquiry, but from some outside body which is quite clearly disinterested and therefore in a position to relieve the mind of any applicant before a tribunal of any fear, however irrelevant or unjustifiable, that his case may have been departmentally prejudged in advance. It is for that reason that I prefer the recommendation of the Committee, and I hope that the Government may still reconsider their view on that subject.
  The Committee rightly lay great emphasis on three principles: that in all these matters there should be openness, fairness and impartiality. Those are vital principles in the administration of any bodies of this kind, and the Committee have, I think, applied those principles firmly and consistently to all the recommendations which appear in their Report. For one thing, they are strongly in favour of public hearings. That I believe to be a perfectly sound decision, from which I gather the Government do not dissent, though the Committee make—rightly, as I believe—this one reservation: that in such matters as National Assistance, where the intimate private affairs of individuals may be concerned, the matter should be heard and decided in private.
  My Lords, the Committee also laid great stress on the giving of full reasons for the decision of any tribunal, in order that there may be no dissatisfaction on the part of the applicant arising through not knowing the cause for which, and the

  527
  basis upon which, his claim or application has been dismissed. In the past I recall very well that, in conjunction with a number of other Members of your Lordships' House, we did our best, in the years between 1946 and 1951, when a whole series of Bills were presented to us by the then Government, to urge upon the Ministers concerned the extreme necessity for including in those measures two vital matters. The first was that, as a general rule (though there might be certain limited exceptions), there should be an appeal from these tribunals, both so that a person may not think that his case has been wrongly decided by a tribunal of first instance and that he has no further redress; and also, and no less importantly, that there may come into being a body of authoritative decisions on those various matters by an appeal tribunal which can bring some harmony and unanimity into the decisions of the lower tribunals.
  I am delighted to see that that recommendation is supported by the Committee, except that they make the reservation that there shall not be an appeal on law from the Commissioners of National Assistance, National Insurance and Industrial Injuries. That is the one recommendation of the Committee with which I am not fully in accord. Although I realise that those are eminent lawyers who hold the offices of Commissioners in these various fields, at the same time even Her Majesty's Judges are not regarded as finally infallible; and it seems to me a pity that, on a point of law, there should be no appeal to the courts even from those Commissioners. The Committee recommend, and I gather that the Government approve, that there should be an appeal on facts, on law and on merits from the great majority of tribunals, and that, with the exceptions that I have mentioned, there should be an appeal to the courts from the appellate tribunal on points of law. I am sure that the wider opening for appeals is right in principle.
  As regards legal representation, here, too, the Committee recommend—and the Government support them—that normally, with certain perhaps less important reservations, there should be legal representation, if required, by the persons concerned before these tribunals. It was said, I think in another place, that this
  528
  might constitute a sort of "lawyers' paradise." I conceive a "lawyers' paradise" to be a place where there is full employment and fat fees, but I do not see those tribunals providing either of those agreeable conditions, because I do not believe that there will be any great rush to employ lawyers before these tribunals. Certainly much admirable work is done, and I should have thought inevitably would continue to be done, by trade union representatives in presenting cases before tribunals of this kind. It seems right to me, however, that if a person wants to be legally represented he should be so entitled. It is purely voluntary on his part. After all, the legal profession is not the master but the servant of the public, and if anybody does not want to employ lawyers there is no need for him to do so. But I believe that the Committee is quite right and I am glad that Her Majesty's Government agree in substance that these tribunals should be open to the legal profession.
  Any of us who have practised in the past in courts have seen only too many instances of an applicant appearing in person and having quite a good case but being completely incapable of "putting it across". When invited by the chairman or other functionary of the court to put questions to a hostile witness, such a person, far from importing any interrogative note into his subsequent remarks, breaks into a confused, prolonged and incoherent speech which does not really advance matters further. It is perhaps rather like the situation which sometimes arises on supplementary questions in your Lordships' House. I feel that that is a situation which ought to be, and will largely be avoided if these recommendations are accepted. I think the Committee and Her Majesty's Government agree that so far as possible there should be legal chairmen for most of these bodies and, in particular, for the rent tribunal. It is satisfactory that the Committee as a whole discovered little with which to find fault in the general conduct of tribunals, but they have some criticism to make of the rent tribunal and the county agricultural executive committee; and they strongly recommend that the chairman of the rent tribunal should always be a lawyer. I believe that that is probably right.
  I want to give one word of warning in regard to the great extension (if it involves

  529
  a great extension) of the use of legal chairmen. In my view legal qualifications are not enough. There must be legal experience as well as legal qualifications if the duties of a chairman are to be adequately carried out. From that point of view we might want to call upon the services—no doubt in most cases the part-time services—of members of the Bar who are qualified and experienced; and those are just the people who normally are busy with their own practice. The only warning I want to give—and I am sure it is one on which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will agree with me—is that it would be unwise for us so far to extend the scheme as to outrun the supply of members of either branch of the legal profession capable to carry out that task.
  I believe that where what might be called the normal procedure of the courts of justice is gone through, where witnesses are called and cross-examined, speeches are made and so forth, it is a great advantage to have a chairman with legal experience. It is said that it is very desirable to have informality in these tribunals and I fully agree. One does not want any kind of full-dress trial every time a man makes an application under the National Insurance Act or appears as a conscientious objector. But in my view the presence of a legal chairman is likely to offset informality rather than emphasise it, particularly if he has members of the Bar before him, for he knows their ways and can keep them well in hard. If such a chairman sets the tone, I believe there will be little or no difficulty in preserving informality in these matters.
  If the Bar and solicitors are to be admitted to these tribunals, it seems to me to follow logically and inevitably that we must extend to those tribunals the existing provisions in regard to legal aid and, in due course (when they come into being), the subsequent provisions in regard to legal advice. I know that there are difficulties in regard to legal aid and that there is already what the Home Secretary in another place called a "queue" of applicants for the extension of legal aid beyond its present limits; but it seems to me difficult to resist the logic of admitting legal representation arising from an extension of the scheme of legal aid and the subsequent scheme of legal advice in regard to these tribunals.
  The next group of matters with which I wish to deal concerns something which I regard as of great importance—the position of inspectors, particularly inspectors in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in regard to the holding of inquiries. A question arises as to their method of appointment. The Committee were anxious that they should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not by the Minister concerned. I understand that Her Majesty's Government do not accept that recommendation but feel rather that inspectors should be appointed
  by the Minister after consultation. There again, as with the appointment of members of the tribunal, I do not want to see the Minister's hand in these matters but wish rather to preserve both the appearance and the reality of complete impartiality in bodies of this kind. I do not think we shall get that appearance of complete impartiality so long as it is known by people who are to appear before the tribunal that the Minister whose Department is intimately concerned with the decision of that tribunal has himself appointed the person who is to be the judge in the matter. It may be only a matter of appearance, but I believe that in matters of this kind appearance is almost as essential as reality in convincing persons who appear before tribunals that they are getting a fair deal.
  Some years ago and from another angle of your Lordships' House I introduced a Bill which contained a provision that the reports of inspectors should be published. That particular clause and I believe all the other clauses were summarily dealt with by the then Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend (for he was my friend for more than forty years), the late Lord Jowitt. I observe that the Committee recommend, and the Government accept, that the report, so far as it concerns facts, shall in future be published. That is, to my mind, a very great advance indeed. The Government are a little more hesitant than the Committee in regard to the publication of recommendations. I should like to see the Government go the whole way and agree that not only the findings of facts but also the recommendations to the Minister should normally (there may have to be exceptions) be published for everybody to read; because that again, I think, in the same way as in other

  531
  matters, will help to restore or uphold confidence in the tribunals before whom people are to appear. That the Minister, when his decision is made, should give full reasons for that decision is. I am sure, of the utmost value in this matter of upholding confidence fidence; and also that he should state as specifically as possible the policy of his Department in regard to the matters in hand. All those steps, perhaps small in themselves, will, I think, act as a real reassurance to a number of people who are increasingly concerned with appearance before tribunals of this kind.
  My Lords, I have dealt only with what seem to me to be the outstanding recommendations of this Committee. No doubt other noble Lords will deal with others. Before I finish, I want to add this further comment. I have read with the greatest relief that, quite apart from what the Committee accepted, they rejected two proposals which were urged upon them; and it was a rejection with which I can only sympathise and at which I rejoice. It was pressed upon the Committee that they should recommend the introduction into this country of something in the nature of the droit administratif and the Conseil d'état, such as is the case in France. In my view, although I know that there are powerful arguments in support of such a procedure, although such an offshoot may perhaps be conveniently grafted upon a written code. such as the Code Napoleon, it does not spring naturally from a system of justice such as we enjoy in this country: and I am glad indeed that the Committee rejected it.
  The other contention which the Committee rejected—and here again I could not be more thankful that they have taken that view—was to me, indeed. a startling contention. It was urged upon them by a high member of the Civil Service that these tribunals were not adjudicatory but administrative: that they were part of the apparatus of Government and not part of the machinery of justice. That seems to me an absolutely untenable thesis, and I am delighted that the Committee summarily rejected it.
  In another place, Her Majesty's Government said that they had brought the Report before the attention of the
  532
  House in order that honourable Members might make their contribution towards the questions therein discussed; and I do not for a moment doubt that those who represent Her Majesty's Government in this House will give an equal welcome to any suggestions which may flow from your Lordships in the course of this debate. This is essentially a matter in which the collective wisdom and experience of this House, even as at present constituted, may. I think, be of real value to the Government. It is also a matter which, however little the fact may be realised by Press and public, is of vital importance to every citizen to whom concepts like liberty and justice are something more than sounding but rusty brass. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
  3.15 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, when the Lord Privy Seal opened a debate in another place upon the Franks Report, he used this language [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons. Vol. 575 (No. 158), col. 400]:
  "I am comforted in feeling that one great lawyer … will follow me and another great lawyer … will wind up. This is a lawyers' paradise, but the issues involved concern not only lawyers, hut the ordinary citizen."
  A great lawyer has opened this debate in your Lordships' House to-day another great lawyer, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is to intervene and make his maiden speech in your Lordships' House during the debate: and the greatest lawyer of them all, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, is going to wind up. I stand at this Dispatch Box as the humble representative of the ordinary citizen—a rôle that I have played upon many occasions when it might have been said that your Lordships' House was a lawyers' paradise. But I think that this debate is one in which laymen can speak with as great authority as the luminaries of the law.
  I am sure that I voice the appreciation of all your Lordships in thanking the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. not only for the lucidity with which he has opened the debate but also for his charm of manner, with which he used to delight us in those days when he sat on the Front Bench on this side of the House before he passed, via the depressive atmosphere of the Government Front Bench, to the seat which he occupies now. On behalf

  533
  of noble Lords on this side of the House, I should like to join with him in paying a tribute to Sir Oliver Franks and the members of his Committee, which, as the noble Marquess has said, contained three illustrious Members of this House. I think that, the noble Marquess said that the Report of this Committee could be recognised as one of the great State Papers. I would say that it is the greatest Report that has been produced in the lifetime of nearly all of us in this House. What I admire perhaps more than anything else is the intellectual honesty of its wording and the intellectual honesty of its approach. I think that Sir Oliver and the distinguished gentlemen who served with him have created a record. I have always been told by old and respected Members of your Lordships' House that any Report had to reside in the pigeon-holes of a Government Department for seventeen years before it reached, like wine, a full maturity. I agree, my Lords, because I was once Chairman of a Government Inquiry, and the cobwebs are still adorning the Report which was produced. I do not: think that this Report resided in the pigeon-holes for seventeen weeks; and for that we are very grateful.
  Looking at this matter from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, I am encouraged by some of the praise which this Report has received, in so far as it is acclaimed as a victory for the rights of the ordinary man over authority. It may be. But, if we take the last decade, we ourselves, as ordinary citizens of this country, have, by our actions or inactions, built up this Frankenstein monster which now on every hand threatens to strangle the rights of the common man. It is by our will that this has been done. It is no good calling it bureaucracy; it is no good blaming civil servants for what is known as the "insolence of office". We ordinary people of this country are to blame, and I think that we in Parliament have a very special and heavy responsibility to bear, because how often are we in your Lordships' House now confronted, day in and day out, with what is known colloquially as "half-baked legislation". We pass it passively. The legislation is purely permissive. We delegate by regulation to the great machine of the bureaucracy. I think it is very apt that the discussion by your Lordships of this Report, which is the first effort that we are making to safe-
  534
  guard the rights and liberties of the ordinary citizen, should take place at a time when public opinion is focused upon the question of whether or not your Lordships' House is worth retaining.
  In my view—I have stated this before, and I see no reason why I should not state it again—the paramount and prime duty of your Lordships' House is that of a Revising Chamber, studiously and carefully to see that legislation does not go through which is purely a blank cheque for Departments to use just as they wish. There was an outstanding example in your Lordships' House within recent months, when a Bill came here which affected the liberties and the rights of the poorest and meanest of the citizens of this country without any due consideration of how it affected them. It was in that Bill that your Lordships' House had inserted four completely new clauses after debate and, if I may say so, after taking the Government to the Division Lobby and beating them—I am, of course, referring to the Electricity Bill.
  In the course of the discussions upon that Bill this very subject—the independence of tribunals and the right of the ordinary citizen to be heard—was debated at great length in your Lordships' House. And may I say this? I am very glad that the Minister concerned is in his place. Let it be to his everlasting credit that he it was who interpreted the wishes of your Lordships' House in that regard; and his name will go down as one who was riot averse to altering his Bill at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour, after your Lordships had convinced him that the rights of the citizen were being overrun. I remember that when your Lordships went into the Division Lobby on the question of whether we should have independent inspectors, it was owing to the intervention, with his usual charm, of the noble and learned Viscount, nervous, I suspect, that the Government had to fear a second defeat in the course of one Bill, and feeling that he had to come to the avid of the Government, that the Government won the day. I always thought that his fears on that occasion were not well founded.
  However, we see in the Franks Committee Report a vindication of every argument used in your Lordships' House on that occasion. The noble and learned

  535
  Viscount, I know, will forgive me for reminding him of what was said upon that occasion when he asked your Lordships not to accept the Amendment I moved that the tribunal should consist of an inspector to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That has now found expression 100 per cent. in this Report. As your Lordships will gather from what I have said, I accept this Report. If your Lordships will turn to paragraph 40 of the Report before you you will see that the Committee say unanimously:
  "tribunals should properly be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of administration."
  If you accept that, the whole of the proposals of this Report fall, like the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle, into their proper places. All we were trying to do in the battles which we had through all the stages of the Electricity Bill—and it was accepted by the noble Lord the Minister of Power—was to put into effect the first principle that is contained in paragraph 405. Here, if your Lordships will turn to it, you will see the Committee say—and I think this is fundamental—
  "the individual has the right to enjoy his property without interference from the administration, unless the interference is unmistakably justified in the public interest."
  If the Government accept that, then the whole of the fight that your Lordships made has been vindicated.
  It would be impossible to go over the whole of this Report, and I am not going to attempt any such thing after the excellent speech to which we have just listened, if I may say so without impertinence to the noble Marquess. I, like him, intend to pick out what I think are the most important passages. When the Government, through the mouth of the Lord Privy Seal, -have said that they accept without reservation the three cardinal principles which the noble Marquess has mentioned—openness, fairness and impartiality—I cannot help expressing my regret that, also through the mouth of the Lord Privy Seal, they appear to water some of that faith, and that in places it becomes a little lukewarm. The first matter I would mention is the right of legal representation before tribunals. May I make it clear that when I am talking about "tribunals". I am including them all, whether they are bodies consisting of
  536
  a chairman with a number of members, or whether they come down to an inspector, who, as at the present time, but I hope for perhaps the last time, has been appointed by the noble Lord the Minister of Power—they are all tribunals.
  Brushing aside all legal formula, what I am afraid of is the power of the public purse—the public corporation or the Government Department who spend the taxpayers' or the ratepayers' money in the briefing of leading counsel who can tear to pieces the ordinary, inarticulate man who wants to take advantage of his rights and appear before the tribunal. That is why I am glad that the Committee are in favour of the right of legal representation. I would go further and say that there should be free legal aid—which I look upon as one of the blessings of the Welfare State. How can the ordinary, inarticulate citizen hope to be able to present his case fairly, factually and properly before the might of the Bar? I anticipate that what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will say is that we have not the money; we cannot afford it. Well, that may be right; but I hope that he will go some way towards accepting the principle that the successful objector should have his expenses refunded. I know of many cases where the might of the legal profession has been arrayed because it was thought that it would frighten the small man who could not afford to brief even a junior counsel.
  That brings me to the next point, on which again I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Reading; and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will agree with this. I think that in every case where evidence has to be given, which may be contradictory, and where cross-examination is allowed, there should be a chairman who, though not necessarily a barrister, should at least be someone with legal training. That is the greatest guarantee that the ordinary, inarticulate citizen will, at least, get a fair hearing. In all the tribunals of which I have had experience it has been shown to be most necessary that those who are taking evidence should know how to take evidence, how to sift it and how to protect the non-legal witness. When there is a case, as was mentioned in another place, of the Central Electricity Authority going down to the Bradwell public inquiry with

  537
  a well-known "silk" and forty-three witnesses, what chance has the village resident against the might and cleverness of counsel, well versed in the art of discrediting witnesses, unless the chairman is "the other man's friend" and will, at least, see that he gets a fair deal?
  As I say, I do not mind if the chairman is not a barrister so long as he has had legal training; I would not dismiss all the inspectors or chairmen who sit on these tribunals to-day because they do not happen to be barristers. I know that I nave only to appeal to the Lord Chancellor on this point in the interests of justice, because there is grave disquiet throughout the country about the working of these tribunals. I read with interest the statement made by Sir George Coldstream, the permanent head of the Lord Chancellor's Department, when he said before the Franks Committee that there was grave public disquiet about the operation of these tribunals. That is the sort of powerful understatement one would expect from a man of the calibre of Sir George Coldstream.
  I come now to the appointment of these tribunals, and I would treat this matter in two sections. I may have a suspicious mind, but I do not like the words used by the Lord Privy Seal in another place when he was giving the Government's dictum in this regard. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 575 (No. 158), col. 406]
  "The Government sympathise with the object of these recommendations. We propose that, in general, chairmen should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor in England and Wales and by the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland."
  What does "in general" mean? Either the Lord Chancellor will appoint them, or he will not. Are there to be exceptions? Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can enlighten me on that matter. The Lord Privy Seal went on:
  "We do not, however, think it would be desirable for the new Council to appoint members of tribunals."
  Why not? The reason given by the Lord Privy Seal is:
  "Such an arrangement would not preserve proper accountability to Parliament."
  How does that affect it? He went on:
  "It is a matter of keeping checks and balances throughout."
  What checks? What balances? How can the appointment by this Council of
  538
  members of tribunals—a proposal which receives my hearty support—affect the accountability to Parliament? I hesitate to bring a discordant note into these proceedings, but is this the first victory of the Departmental influence in seeking not to give up their patronage? How can the Government say in one breath, as the Lord Privy Seal did, that they are in sympathy with the principles of openness, fairness and impartiality, and still want all the members of the tribunal to be selected by the Department concerned in a case which is to be heard? I should want a far better reason than "checks and balances" and "accountability to Parliament" to accept that.
  With regard to the appointment of inspectors, I hold that it is fundamentally wrong, as the Franks Committee openly say, that an inspector should sit as a chairman by himself and make recommendations on a case where his Department is vitally interested. The reason stated for this is that [Col. 410]:
  "The Government further recognise the importance of emphasising the independence of the inspectorate, and to meet the spirit "—
  "the spirit", mark you—
  "of the Committee's recommendations we propose that in future the Minister will appoint them only after consultation with the Lord Chancellor, and will be free to dismiss them, should such an eventuality arise, only with his consent."
  That is nothing but an attempt to give an air of respectability to a shabby arrangement, and to use the skirts of the Lord Chancellor's gown to cover it up.
  Why cannot the Lord Chancellor appoint them? The only person who will satisfy the ordinary citizen is somebody appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Why is it that there is such a respect for the law in this country? Why are the Home Office, the Ministries or any Government Department not allowed to appoint the Judges? It is because Judges must have, not only the spirit of independence, but the air of independence. It is the old maxim over again: that not only must justice be done, but it must be apparent that it is being done. I think it is completely wrong that a Department should appoint an inspector who has to make a report and advise the Minister on what action that Minister should take.
  I now come to what I think is the great omission from this Report. I am surprised that the Franks Committee do

  539
  not make any reference to what I call the "Tweedledum and Tweedledee system ", where the noble Lord, the Minister of Power, appoints an inspector to hold inquiries into whether we should be wrapped round by pylons, atomic power stations and super-grids—a matter which has caused considerable disquiet in the country. To give that inspector an air of respectability he has, sitting holding his hand, another inspector from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I tell the noble Lord that never, while that system goes on, will such inquiries win the confidence of the public which is so essential. What will it mean, if Parliament agrees to the Government's proposal? The inspectors will be the same people appointed in the same way, and the same things will go on. Therefore, I sincerely hope that that will be altered. As the Report says, this is the biggest question. The inquiries held by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government number about 6.000 a year—they outnumber the rest of the tribunals by a long way—and I beg the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to use his influence to ensure that they come under his power of appointment and suspension.
  The publication of the reports of ministerial decisions is again a vital matter. There are exceptions—the noble Marquess mentioned some—but, by and large, openness, fairness and impartiality will never be observed unless it is put into practice in all this routine. Do not, I beg of you, after having received this Report, try to sidetrack it to save Departmental face. Experience has taught me that the greatest malefactor—and I use that term without offence—in the oppression of the citizen is the Service Department. I beg the Government to accept the recommendation of the Committee that in every case where the rights of the citizen and his property are affected Service Departments shall be treated on all fours with every other Department, except when the appropriate Secretary of State can issue his fiat that it would not be in the interest of the security of the State so to do. To-day a mast may be put on the highest hill for all to see for thirty miles around, and nobody knows about it until it is there, because the Department concerned says, "Ssh !—security! Nobody must know it is going
  540
  up "—although everybody can see it when it is up. That goes on every day.
  We have fought this battle before in your Lordships' House. We had not the pleasure of the company of the noble and learned Viscount in those days, but I remember having to defend a similar system when I was responsible for conducting the Patents Bill through your Lordships' House. I remember that great man, the late Lord Simon, reading this House a lecture about security and the crimes that can be committed in its name. So long as the security of the State is safeguarded, I do not see why a Service Department, when it comes to their relations with the ordinary citizen, should not be treated like any other Department. They get away with far too much at the present time.
  Those are the points I wished specifically to raise. Let me conclude by saying this. I hope that the publication of this Report will be a red letter day in the lives of the ordinary citizens of this country. It is not a battle won—the battle is only just commencing—but in the end perhaps we shall be able to evolve a system which Parliament itself cannot do. Parliament, with all the good will in the world, and this House, marvellous institution as it is, as a revising Chamber, cannot safeguard every inroad upon the rights and liberties of the subject. Man was born to be free. Man was never made for the State: the State was made for man.
  3.49 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I find myself so much in accord with the last two speeches that I do not propose to detain your Lordships for long. But, of course, there are certain feelings in this quarter of the House that the motivation—if that is the correct technical term—behind this Committee sprang from this quarter of the House, particularly from an event about ten years ago, when the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who has put this most interesting and useful Motion before us, was speaking from approximately this position in a most able and masterly speech on a Bill dealing with the liberty of the subject. Therefore, your Lordships will forgive me if I look upon this whole matter from the angle of this south-west corner of your Lordships' House, because it is the Liberal diagnosis of the evils existing in the

  541
  present system which has been confirmed by this excellent, lucid and able Report of the Franks Committee.
  We have continuously, in season and out of season—though we do not admit out of season—advocated the lifting of these many restrictions whose origin is based either in war or in the chaos and difficulties which arise immediately after a war. It is for those two reasons, of course, that objectionable legislation, as we now regard it, has had to be inflicted upon the country. All I can say is that during the last war, and since the last war, when this legislation was imposed, I think no blame can be attached to the Liberal Party for putting it into force.
  We welcome this Report very much, as the last two noble Lords have said. We cannot help comparing it in some ways with the Liberties of the Subject Bill, on which it impinges in some respects, though in others it deals with a completely different field of investigation. However, it is very welcome, so far as it goes, and we very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will implement the Committee's recommendations by introducing appropriate legislation as soon as possible. What we particularly want to know is how far the Government will go, and whether they can be persuaded, apart from rejecting one or two points which do not appeal to them, to include Other points which were not strictly within the terms of reference of this Committee, and therefore have not been reported on by them.
  We feel that this Report, excellent as it is, sweeps the floor only where the floor is seen; it does not go under the sofa or get at the cobwebs in the corner. If I may be forgiven for referring again to the Liberties of the Subject Bill, it strikes me as particularly interesting that so far in this debate enthusiastic support for this Report should have come from the Conservative Benches and the Labour Benches. I make that point because your Lordships will remember that in 1948. when the first Liberties of the Subject Bill was put forward, it had the enthusiastic support of the Conservative Party, but the Labour Government found no time to give it further progress. The same thing happened in 1950, when my noble friend Lord Samuel introduced a further Liberties of the Subject Bill: we again had Conservative support, which was shown in the Division Lobby by a vote of 66 votes to
  542
  24. But again the Labour Party were quite unwilling to implement it. The matter was brought up on a third occasion, again by my noble friend Lord Samuel, in the form of a Resolution, but at that time the power of government had changed from the Labour Party to the Conservative Party. And although your Lordships may see some consistency in it, we found the situation a little peculiar; on that occasion we had the full support of the Opposition, the Labour Party, but had the hostility of the Government, the Conservative Party.
  If there is any consistency in this matter, with some modesty I claim that we at least are consistent. What is the cause of that? It is very simple, and I think I can put it without being offensive. These regulations are to ease things along for the Government and for Government Departments. We who are in almost permanent Opposition have claimed that they go too far and give the Government too much power, so that Departments who wish to take a certain action know that they have that extra power in reserve, though they do not intend to use it. It is only in very exceptional and accidental cases, of course, that such power is used, as it was in the Crichel Down case, which is not, as the noble Marquess said, touched on in the terms of reference of this Committee. We quite understand why Government Departments, in particular, like to have a little more power than they really need, because it is extremely useful; and I think that explains why any political Party in Opposition perhaps sees the justice of the matter without looking through the spectacles of expediency which may occasionally be put on by those in Government office.
  My Lords, there are one or two points that I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack—because this is a very wide question, and I suggest that one or two of the objects of the Liberties of the Subject Bill enter into it, and I believe that the Government are to produce legislation implementing this Report. I hope the Lord Chancellor will at least consider putting in the Bill one or two other matters which seem to me perfectly relevant and have been put before your Lordships in the Liberties of the Subject Bill before now. The first I need hardly emphasise, because it has been touched on most ably

  543
  already: a Minister of the Crown should not be a judge in his own case. I need not say more on that; it seems an elementary principle of justice. Secondly, when a person or body has a grievance the official appointed to hold the inquiry should be independent. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has made that point abundantly clear and it is a perfectly obvious one.
  There is one point that has not been touched on and I think it is not irrelevant, and that is the matter of Statutory Instruments. As your Lordships know, if a Ministry wishes to take a certain action it can very often do so, without coming to Parliament for an Act to be passed, by the creation of a Statutory Instrument placed on the Table of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships are entitled to reject that Statutory Instrument within a certain period, but if your Lordships do not reject it the Statutory Instrument takes effect. The point here is that your Lordships are not allowed to amend that Instrument. You can accept it in toto or reject it in toto. I think that there are cases where, again for the reasons I have just explained, a Government Department may submit a Statutory Instrument which probably takes a little more power than is actually necessary—and how convenient that is for the man wielding the power! Surely your Lordships ought to be free in such a case to amend the Instrument: to whittle it down. possibly in some cases to expand it, but at least to have the right of amending it. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether he will take that point into account in any future legislation which may be introduced.
  There is another point which seems to me equally non-irrelevant, if I may use the term. As your Lordships may know, at present the Crown is in a position to withhold evidence in these cases before tribunals. It is perfectly obvious that the Crown must have power to withhold evidence in certain cases, particularly where national security or something of that nature is involved, but I suggest that it is too much of a temptation to any Government Department to be able to withhold evidence when by withholding such evidence they can win a point that they would not otherwise have won.
  544
  I am not imputing any improper behaviour to anybody, but I suggest that the withholding of evidence by the Crown is a very dangerous practice if carried beyond the narrow limit originally intended.
  Moreover, unless I am mistaken—and I am open to correction—officials dealing with these matters apparently have a right of search without the ordinary warrant required by a police officer. It seems to us in this part of the House completely wrong that anybody should be entitled to go into a house, search for documents, take them away without listing them or giving a receipt, and behaving in that extraordinary highhanded manner which before the last war Parliament would not have tolerated. I should like to refer to the sub-heading on page 7 of the Report. The heading is "Policy is not our concern ", and in the last sentence the Committee say this:
  "We have no concern with the policies which have given rise to the various tribunals or adminstrative procedures, and are not to be understood as approving or disapproving of these policies."
  "Policy is not our concern" say the Committee—and they are perfectly right to say so. But policy is our concern, my Lords, and I do ask the Government, in the light of the recommendations of this Committee, not to look upon the whole question only as a matter for paring but also as a matter for expansion.
  4.0 p.m.
  LORD DENNING: My Lords, it has been my lot as a Judge to review the decisions of many tribunals, and may I say how welcome it is that this important Report should be accepted by all Parties in the State, because it contains and reaffirms a constitutional principle of the first importance—namely, that these tribunals are not part of the administrative machinery of government under the control of Departments; they are part of the judicial system of the land under the rule of law. This Report shows how that principle should be put into practice. These tribunals should, whenever appropriate, give reasons for their decisions, and their decisions should be subject to appeal to the courts on points of law. Many cases have come before the courts to show the need for action on these matters. The courts have exercised a jurisdiction in the past to control

  545
  tribunals, but they have been fettered by antiquated rules. It is said that they can interfere if the tribunals go outside their jurisdiction altogether but that they cannot interfere if the tribunals exercise their jurisdiction badly.
  Let me give your Lordships some instances of what that means. Take rent tribunals, where there is no appeal to the courts and take a case which arose concerning a modern block of high quality flats in Brighton. Well-to-do people took those flats, having agreed to pay the rent which was asked. After they had gone into the flats, they applied to the tribunal for a reduction, They called no evidence in support of their claim. The landlords called a chartered surveyor and a chartered accountant and gave evidence that the rents were reasonable, indeed, low, in all the circumstances. The evidence of the landlords was not contradicted or cross-examined, yet the tribunal, in flat contradiction of the evidence, reduced the rents. There was an attempt to get the courts to interfere, but it had to be said "No; no appeal is possible from the rent tribunals."
  But it was the Agricultural Land Tribunals which gave the courts as much distress as anything, in the days when thee was no appeal from their decisions. There was the case of Mr. and Mrs. Woollett, with their bungalow and four acres in Essex. The land was requisitioned during the war, and after the war the Minister told them that in twelve months it would be released. Desiring to make their market garden there, they made provision accordingly: they bought a rotary hoe and other implements, and they put up an agricultural store. But within six months the Minister had changed his mind; he had determined to acquire the site compulsorily: and he did. The Woolletts took the case to the Land Tribunal, and the Tribunal affirmed the Minister's action—no appeal to the courts. The Woolletts did all they could. They brought the case up, not on the merits—because they could not bring it up on the merits—hut on the technicality that the tribunal had not been properly appointed. The court could not see its way to give effect to that technicality and affirmed the decision. But the notice that had been taken of the case ensured that in due course the Minister on his own initiative did release the land and return it to the Woolletts.
  546
  Take another case, that of Mr. Benney, a farmer in Cornwall. He had a farm, a house and 155 acres. His father and his grandfather had occupied the land. His father had built the house on his marriage. The Agricultural Land Tribunal ordered him out of house and land, on the ground that he had not kept up a reasonable standard of production. He had nowhere else to go—there was no provision for alternative accommodation. He, too, applied to the courts. He could not apply on the merits, but he found a technicality; that the Tribunal had dealt with 151 acres but the Minister had made an order for 155 acres, and the courts were able to seize hold of that technicality to upset the order. I hope that Mr. Benney is still in his farm. No appeal on the merits!
  However, the courts have been cleaning up their own machinery a little. This year there was an application in respect of a Medical Appeals Tribunal, from which there is no appeal to the courts. Mr. Gilmore, a blacksmith, had lost one eye at his work twenty years ago. That was before the days of any National or Industrial Injuries Insurance. Two or three years ago, after Industrial Injuries Insurance had come in, he was at work and a piece of ash flew into his other eye; so there he was, blind in both eyes. The Medical Appeals Tribunal gave him only 20 per cent. benefit, because they thought that they had to deal with only the latest injury. On a true reading of the regulations his case ought to have been treated as one of total blindness, and lie ought to have been given 100 per cent. I am glad to say that the courts—although there was no appeal, and Parliament had said that the decision was conclusive—furbished up their own machinery; and as the Tribunal had given reasons, and those reasons were wrong, the courts were able to upset that decision.
  I hope that I have said enough to shoo that there is need to affirm most strongly the recommendation of the Committee that there should be an appeal to the courts on any point of law. But what form is this appeal to take? It is a difficult matter, because the structure recommended by the Committee is this. Taking the agricultural committees, they say "Wipe away the executive committees and put new tribunals in their place. Put above them Agricultural Land Tribunals.

  547
  Let there be an appeal from them to the High Court, and an appeal to a higher court from there." Perhaps further consideration should be given to the question of whether that should be the structure of appeal.
  I will tell your Lordships something about an appeal structure with which I had some connection—namely, the Pensions Appeals Tribunal. After the war the late Lord Jowitt, of honoured memory, appointed me as the nominated Judge to hear all appeals from ex-Servicemen. The machinery of appeal is this. The Ministry look into a case, and say whether or not it is a proper case for a pension. If they reject it, there is an appeal to a Pensions Appeal Tribunal, which consists of a lawyer, as chairman, a medical man and a Service member. If they reject it, there is an appeal to the High Court on points of law. I was nominated as the Judge to hear all these appeals.
  See how the course of justice may unknowingly go wrong! I had not been sitting for two or three weeks, when I realised that the Tribunals had been putting the burden of proof the wrong way—they were putting it on the Service man to prove that his disability was attributable to war service. That had been the law before 1943; but in 1943 the Royal Warrant was amended to say that if a man was fit when he went into the Service and disabled when he came out, there should be a presumption, and a compelling presumption, that his disablement was due to war service and that the burden was on the Ministry, if they could, to prove the contrary. So far as I could see, despite the change in the Royal Warrant, the Tribunals had gone on in the old way. They were saying in their reasons, "We cannot find sufficient ground for saying that this was attributable to war service." I hope I was right, but in every case I allowed the appeal.
  Further than that, there arose the question of those people whose cases had been decided in the last two years on a wrong basis. Application was made to extend the time limit for an appeal. The Attorney General of the day argued that a judge had no power to give an extension of time. I held that an extension of time was permissible, and made it reasonably clear that in every case the
  548
  time would be extended; whereupon the Government of the day, very properly, set up a special Review Tribunal which reviewed all those cases. As a result, many men got the pensions to which they were entitled, and counsel for the British Legion, addressing me afterwards, told me how admirably the Review Tribunal had done their work.
  What I have said shows how, quite unconsciously and unmeaningly, a tribunal may slip into error and may need to be corrected. But that is not the only purpose of an appeal. Another purpose is to get uniform decisions. There were fourteen or fifteen tribunals operating all over the country, and one might come to a decision different from that of another. There were difficult cases. Cancer, for example, is a very difficult and arguable case. On the one hand, doctors could not say what was the cause of cancer, so how could it be said that it was not due to war service? On the other hand, it was said that cancer is just as prevalent in civilian life as it is in the Army, and that there is no possibility of its being due to war service. One tribunal would decide a case in one way and another tribunal would decide in quite a different way. How unfortunate for all the widows and other dependants! We arranged to have test cases in which the medical evidence and the legal position in a typical case of cancer could be settled and decided, so that that might act as a signpost for all other cases of that type. That was done in regard to cancer, leukæmia, varicose veins and other ailments which continually arose, so we achieved uniformity of decision. That, then, is the other value of an appeal.
  As a result of this experience I would ask that, if appeals are to be limited to points of law, a liberal interpretation should be given as to what constitutes a point of law. I will give your Lordships one illustration. Gunner Lee had suffered a great deal from stomach trouble while in the Army. He had reported to Army doctors, and they had pooh-poohed him and put the case on one side. One suggested that he was malingering. When he went to a civilian hospital it was found that his condition was by then inoperable, and he died. His widow brought the case which eventually came to me. She conducted it in person. The man's captain, his comrades and his wife herself proved how he had reported sick to the Army

  549
  doctors and not been given attention; and the tribunal had decided against him simply because nothing appeared in his medical history sheet in regard to his complaints. Medical history sheets, however, may be incomplete. Rightly or wrongly, I held that if a tribunal comes to an unreasonable conclusion, that is a point of law with which courts can interfere. I am glad to say that only a year ago this House, in its Judicial capacity, held that if a tribunal conies to a conclusion to which no reasonable man could come, that is a point of law on which the courts can interfere. In passing, may I express the hope that in any structure which is made in future the jurisdiction of this House in its Judicial capacity will be preserved. Those who remember the workmen's compensation cases which came to this House will recall the liberal interpretation then given by the House in its Judicial capacity—that the burden should not be on the workman who is injured but on his employer.
  My Lords, I have drawn attention to the demerits of tribunals. Let me now say this on their behalf. We all make mistakes. These tribunals are a most valuable part of modern society. They decide disputes which are usually between the individual and the State, and for the most part they are composed of laymen, often unpaid. Most of them have the essential qualifications that they are knowledgeable, right thinking people, and they do the work often as a matter of public service and not for reward. Do not think that it is necessary to replace all of them by lawyers. A good lay man on a tribunal is better than a bad lawyer—and there are not enough good lawyers to go round. These tribunals form as valuable and indispensable a part of our judicial system as justices of the peace; their work is just as valuable, and they too should be held in high regard. It is the great merit of this Report that it is unanimous. It is accepted by all Parties of the State, and by Her Majesty's Government. That, surely, will give all the ordinary people of this country who are interested in liberty great cause for hope.
  4.17 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure that every noble Lord in the Chamber will wish me to express his deep appreciation of the maiden speech to which we have just listened. I feel par
  550
  ticularly proud to be able to convey your Lordships' congratulations to the noble and learned Lord because he has provided me, as a teacher of law, and the many other teachers of law in this country, with a tremendous amount of extraordinarily stimulating law over the last few years. His influence in a profession which tend! to be rather conservative has been wholly admirable, and this afternoon your Lordships have had a taste of the stimulating quality of the mind of the noble and learned Lord. I can assure him, on behalf of us all, that we shall look forward to hearing him intervene in our discussions, and particularly those which have a legal slant, on many occasions in the future.
  In the course of my speech I shall deal with one or two points made by the noble and learned Lord, but I should like to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s of one remark which he made towards the end of his speech. The noble and learned Lord has called attention to the considerable number of mistakes which have been made by these tribunals and which the courts have been able to correct; and he indicated that mistakes were not peculiar to the tribunals. Anybody who has practised in the courts will realise that mistakes are often made in ordinary courts. I will not say just as often, but quite often: and it is not always possible there for litigants to appeal. Again, the law which the courts are administering is often quite out of touch with the social conditions of the present age. As we all know, there is a Committee advising the Lord Chancellor on reforms in the law.
  I think that the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, is very right when he says that we must not run away with the idea that the only mistakes which are made are mistakes in these administrative tribunals, because mistakes are very common both in the substance of the law itself and in the way it is administered. That is bound to be so, because in this frail and human world we are obviously a long way from getting any perfect system, either for the administration of the law or for the administration of the ordinary business with which these tribunals are concerned—much more concerned, in my contention, than they are with the actual administration of legal rules. We are not likely to get 100 per cent., or anything like 100 per cent., perfection in either of these spheres of action.

  551
  I think we are indebted to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for giving us the opportunity of debating this Report this afternoon. I feel particularly grateful to him because I do not agree with the Report so much as he does. In particular, I should like to pick out one matter with which he agrees and I do not. That it is of fundamental importance I agree with the noble and learned Lord. Much of the material with which the Franks Committee was concerned is not the ordinary material of the law but the material of administration; and it seems to me that that fundamental difference, which is recognised in most other States, is not recognised in this country, and it is a great pity that it is not. In other words, there is a great deal to be said for the Continental system of the droit administratif, which, I think, to a considerable extent has been applied in the United States, which derives a great deal of both its law and its administration from the Common Law.
  I would not, of course, advocate the introduction into this country of the droit administratif, or of the administrative courts just as they exist in France or Germany—our history is different from theirs—but it seems to me that it is a mistake to entrust the solution of these problems, at any rate in all cases, to the judges in the ordinary courts of law, whose whole experience is in a different direction. I should like to see the appeals, which I entirely agree ought to take place on questions of law and possibly on certain other aspects of these problems, go to a court which is not just an ordinary Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice but to a special administrative court, in which a Judge of the High Court might sit with an experienced administrator and perhaps some other man of eminence brought in from industry or commerce, who would bring to bear the experience which a captain of industry acquires during the course of his business career.
  My Lords, I think that the Franks Report, although I am critical of it in some respects, will certainly rank very high in the Constitutional history of the country. It will rank with the Report of the Donoughmore Committee, to which in a way it is complementary. Both the Reports are documents of very considerable Constitutional significance. I think
  552
  that the great importance of the Donoughmore Committee's Report was that it vindicated the value—indeed, I think the necessity—of delegated legislation in the modern State. I think it went further than that: it vindicated the essential democratic validity of delegated legislation, although some people would not agree with that view. Similarly, the Franks Committee has vindicated the value, and the necessity, of these administrative tribunals and administrative inquiries.
  As to their validity in a democratic system, the vindication in the Franks Report is not so clear as that in the Donoughmore Report. I think it is a little more shaky than it need have been. Both the Donoughmore Committee and the Franks Committee discussed and describe certain dangers which are inherent on the one side, in delegated legislation, and, on the other side, in the work of administrative tribunals and in these administrative inquiries which are held by the Departments. These matters, which I think everyone will agree are most important, figure largely in the Franks Report. I think that this is the reason, certainly one of the reasons, for the very favourable reception which the Reports have received, and particularly for the favourable reception which the Franks Report has received in your Lordships' House this afternoon, in another place and generally at the hands of those commentators who have discussed it.
  Nevertheless, as I have indicated already, there is a number of respects in which it seems to me that the Franks Report is open to some criticism. If I make most of my remarks this afternoon on these matters. I hope that your Lordships will not think I am generally hostile to the Report. After all, one cannot spend all one's time in saying one likes this or that; it is much better, I think, to indicate those parts which seem open to criticism. The Report contains many comments and recommendations in respect of which I would certainly add my voice to the general chorus of approval which the Franks Report has received. After all, Queens' nourished me also.
  I suspect that a great deal of this general commendation is due to the opening series of remarks—almost platitudes—in regard to general Constitutional affairs. There are more of them in the

  553
  first few pages than in any other Report I remember, and I must say that I read those pages with a certain amount of trepidation. The Report afterwards becomes quite different. I suppose that it is necessary to voice a certain number of platitudes in the beginning of a Report of this kind, but to me, at any rate, it suggested that the Committee were living in the 19th century and were dominated by the work of Albert Dicey, if not by the famous doctrine of the separation of powers which was current in an earlier century. But before we reach the end of Part I, we find that the atmosphere changes and the realities of present-day Government and present-day politics convert the Franks Committee to a more realistic view of the situation.
  In paragraph 30, it seems to me, we get a really fundamental change in outlook. There it is laid down that the most useful approach is an empirical one. I take that to mean that each situation ought to be dealt with on its merits, and that, I believe, is a profoundly true way of going about the discussion of this particular problem. After this, the substance of the Report deals with the various types of business which call for the setting up of tribunals and for the making of inquiries by the Department. It does, in fact, deal with the situation on empirical lines, and that seems to me to be the real strength of the Report. It takes each situation and deals with it in a practical, commonsense way and makes valuable suggestions all along the line.
  The first of the problems, one which is fundamental, and on which I find myself in disagreement with the noble Marquess and other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, is whether these administrative tribunals should be regarded as essentially adjudicative bodies and not administrative bodies. It seems to me that their very description, administrative tribunals, shows that they are concerned essentially with problems of administration—at least in very many cases. I do not think we can really generalise about that. Some illustrations given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, were cases
  where they were dealing with matters which I should have said were really legal matters. In some of the other cases they are administrative matters. That is why it seems to me that it is
  554
  dangerous to generalise about these things.
  The Franks Committee make a broad generalisation to the effect that the machinery has been provided by Parliament for adjudicative purposes. I do not think the matter has been in the minds of Parliament at all. In most of these cases. Bills come before Parliament as drafted in the Departments, and the Departments are directed by the Government, by the Executive, not by the
  Legislature. The Legislature certainly gives its imprimatur to what the Government have decided, because it is a question of decision by the Government, for the decision of the Government, in the actual reality of politics, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, is required for the purpose of carrying out some piece of social policy which it is the policy of that particular Government, representing a particular political Party in the country, not only to put on the Statute Book but actually to carry through by means of the administrative machinery which is used for these purposes.
  The type of rent tribunal to which reference has been made seems to me to be dealing with a legal situation and not an administrative one. The tribunals, or many of them—I do not want to generalise—are established for the purpose of dealing with disputes which arise in the application of social policy and not for dealing with the sort of disputes which arise in law and come before the ordinary courts. They are not concerned with the ordinary disputes which come before courts of law—I repeat that because it seems to me that it is really essential to this discussion. In my opinion, we are getting away from the objective, which is the carrying through of a social policy, a policy of the kind with which Parties in the State are now concerned and which they have endorsed for action. Therefore, to turn these tribunals into part of the ordinary court system of the country will, in my view, be to hamstring the development of social policy. And I do not believe that we can afford to do that.
  For the same reason, I disagree with with the noble Marquess about the complete independence of these tribunals. Each of them, as has been said, "is an integral part of a bit of administration," and, in my view, Sir Norman Brook was perfectly right from an historical point

  555
  of view, in the little discussion he had with Sir Oliver Franks when he said that this was how the tribunals came to be established and that that was the way in which the Cabinet Secretariat and heads of Department had regarded them. The Franks Committee are entitled to say that they do not think that that ought to be so: in fact, they have said that. And the noble Marquess, and I think the noble and learned Lord, agreed with them. All I can say in respect of those tribunals, which are normally administrative—
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I am getting a little confused. Is he saying that because a particular decision is in connection with the social policy of a particular Government therefore it is an administrative and not a judicial matter?
  LORD CHORLEY: I do not think it is solved in that way. You have to look at each particular matter and decide what it is concerned with. Many of these questions in regard to industrial injuries which are dealt with at one part of the Franks Committee's Report are clearly questions of policy. If, in point of fact, the Commissioners decide in a way which does not fit in with the policy of the Department concerned, a new Order in Council is issued in order that the matter may be put right, and the tribunal will, in future, so to speak, carry through the policy which the Government have decided is the right one for protecting the health of the working man in factories and the like. I think that to treat this matter as a pure matter of law is altogether wrong and gets us into inextricable difficulties.
  The importance of the point is that on policy the Minister is answerable in Parliament. Of course, the noble Marquess and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, also, rather pooh-poohed this point about the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament for the work of these tribunals. That seems to me a most important matter, because it means that the administration, through these tribunals, can be brought before Parliament and criticised there. Independence is certainly a virtue, but responsibility, I suggest, is a necessity in these cases. I therefore agree with the Government, who I understand have in
  556
  fact accepted the view that the answerability of the Minister for the work of the tribunals must be preserved. It is, no doubt, right that the work of the ordinary Judiciary should be protected against public criticism and Parliamentary criticism. I accept that, though at the same time I think we ought not to forget that we pay quite a heavy price for it. I feel sometimes that the work of one or two members of the Bench would be improved if it could be criticised a little more in public. But I certainly feel that it would be altogether wrong if we were to extend this immunity from criticism—particularly from criticism in Parliament—to all these tribunals. This is what would have to happen if they were to become completely pendent tribunals, part of the normal judicial system, as I understand is suggested by the Franks Committee and supported by the noble Marquess.
  In this connection it is of first importance that the Franks Committee have found in practice that there is no interference by the Departments with the tribunals and their work. I think that that ought to be underlined. I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, say that in his experience that was borne out by what the courts found in connection with those cases which are brought before them on appeal. In fact, under the present system we have both independence and responsibility to Parliament, and if that is so why should we interfere? The Franks Committee answer: "You cannot always be sure that independence will continue". Surely we have had these tribunals in existence now for a very substantial period of time, doing their work on the whole admirably, as the noble and learned Lord has said, and with complete independence of Ministers and the Civil Service. So I suggest that it would be altogether wrong to interfere with it. I gather that, on the whole, that is the view of the Government.
  The proposal for setting up a corps of independent inspectors—as I understand it, it is for inspectors to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor—seems to me to be even more unrealistic. These inquiries which are held up and down the country, for the most part—and here again one cannot generalise, because cases may differ a great deal—are just a device

  557
  for enabling the Minister or some other person who has to give an administrative decision to inform himself of the facts of the local situation and to obtain informed advice from people who are particularly well qualified and well placed to give it. Therefore the inspector must make the inquiry in the light of the policy inherent in the Statute being administered, and of the Department for whose Minister he is holding the inquiry. Is it not then obvious that the inspector must be appointed by the Minister who is holding the inquiry?
  I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Silkin, who I understood dissented from the view that there should be a corps of inspectors appointed by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. The Lord Chancellor has already so many jobs to do that I should not think he would look forward to having to appoint a whole corps of independent inspectors of this kind, although no doubt if Parliament put it upon him he would undertake it vigorously and with his usual ability. However, I gather that the Government are not accepting this proposal of the Franks Committee either, and I will not labour the point further except to say that this proposal seems to me to be of a piece with those rather less realistic approaches which here and there one finds in the Report.
  There are two matters which I have already raised in an earlier speech on the gracious Speech from the Throne and to which I should like to refer. I do not want to labour them unduly, but I think I should perhaps say a word or two on them. The first is the question of appeal and judicial review. The existing rights of judicial review, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out, and as was pointed out in more detail in the Franks Report, depend on the old prerogative writs in their modern form, certiorari and prohibition and mandamus. The only one that has been much used in later years is certiorari, which, of course, is limited in its scope, and the Franks Committee, very properly it seems to me, felt that something more generous in the way of appeal was necessary.
  That view they elaborate in paragraph 107 of their Report. I need not deal with it in detail, but at the beginning of the paragraph they refer to making all
  558
  decisions open to appeal. A little later on, however, they modify that view and rather run away. In particular, they exclude decisions of the National Insurance and the Industrial Injuries Commissioners. Here I at last agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, because I cannot myself see why these particular tribunals should be free of appeals from their decisions, at any rate on points of law. The Franks Committee say that they are, in fact, staffed by specialist lawyers, and that is true; but it is often valuable on a particular point to get the view of eminent lawyers who are not specialists. I feel myself that there ought always to be the chance of thinking again by another group of people in regard to any decision. If one wishes to make sure that frivolous appeals are not brought, then, as I suggested on a previous occasion, one could allow these appeals to go by leave of the Court of Appeal or the Divisional Court, or whatever court was set up as the appeals tribunal.
  The other point is that if this view of the Franks Committee is right (the Government have not expressed an opinion about this particular matter) and there ought not to be appeals from these National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Commissioners, then I suggest that their recommendation that certiorari should remain open should be looked at again, because in the last few months there have been several cases where appeals have been brought from these commissioners by means of certiorari. Questions of law, wrongly decided on the face of the decision, are, as the Lord Chancellor knows, open to appeal by certiorari, and these cases have been cases of that kind. So that there is here, so to speak, a little roughness in the Franks Report which I suggest should be looked at and cleared up one way or another.
  The other point is in regard to inquiries. In paragraph 387 of the Franks Report the right of appeal by 'bird parties is considered and rejected simply on the ground that it is alleged to be impracticable. The Committee do not explain why it is impracticable, and I myself should like to have a good deal more evidence before being satisfied that it is. They go on to say:
  "It is of course open to third parties, in cases where the applicant appeals against a refusal of planning permission, to attempt to

  559
  prevent development of which they do not approve by opposing the applicant's case at the inquiry."
  But that is only one side of the matter. Third parties may be just as interested, or even more so, when permission is given. Permission to develop a piece of land right up against a public common or right up against somebody's back garden may be very injurious indeed to the public or to a particular person, and I should have thought he was just as much entitled to be in a position to object and make his objection known as anybody else.
  But even if he is not to be allowed to have any right of appeal. I suggest that he should, at any rate, have a right of audience at the time of the original decision; and to have a right of audience he must know what is happening. The situation as it exists at present is that there is no reason why he should know what is happening, and I am suggesting that the law should be amended so that reasonable publicity should be given to planning applications in order that the local planning authority should have the benefit of public opinion before they come to a decision as to whether permission should be granted or not. As the law stands, the only obligation on the local planning authority is to maintain a register of planning applications, which they have to do under Regulation 12 of the General Development Order, 1950. You may say that technically that does give publicity; hut, in fact, it is not one person in a thousand who ever knows of the existence of this register, and, even if he does, unless he is a wealthy man and can afford to employ a solicitor who will send his clerk round once a week or once a month to look at the register, there is no way in which he can discover what is happening. The result of all this is that unless the local planning authority choose, as they may well do, to notify persons who may be interested, then an application can be granted without anyone outside the council knowing anything about it until it is too late for anything effective to be done. That, I suggest, is not a satisfactory situation.
  An interesting illustration of how this works has cropped up within my knowledge recently. At Haslemere, certain people who are interested in amenities are at present engaged in an attempt to
  560
  induce the local planning authority to revoke a planning permission which was granted for development in an area which has been recommended in the Report of the National Parks Commission as a Conservation Area. This planning permission was granted in June of this year, and it was not until towards the end of August that the local Haslemere Preservation Society, or any of the people who had gardens and land round about, or the National Trust Blackdown Committee, which owns land contiguous to this area, knew anything about what had happened. Now it is possible for these people—and I understand some of them are doing it—to present a petition to the local council, asking them to exercise the powers of revocation which they have under Section 21 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. But this is very late in the day, of course, and it means that, up to a point, vested interests have been established; and that makes it much more difficult to get the matter properly considered.
  I suggest, therefore—and I think that this is inherent in the Franks Committee Report—that people who are affected by these things ought to be told what the position is. Paragraph 67 of the Franks Report—which deals with a different matter altogether, but the heading is valuable—says
  "Making the citizen aware of his rights."
  That seems to me to be an important aspect of the whole of this business: it is wrong that there is no need to bring these applications for alterations in the plan to the knowledge of the people interested. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to give us an assurance of improvement on this particular point. I hope that these two matters, which are matters of detail, and which I have had to explain at some length, have not bored your Lordships. They are, I think, matters of substance, and I am hoping that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to help us in his reply.
  4.54 p.m.
  LORD WISE: My Lords, I wish to deal with only one section of the Report, and I hope to do that in a few words because I understand that my noble friend Lord Silkin is anxious to speak. The section with which I wish to deal is that in regard

  561
  to the county agricultural executive committees. We have been treated this afternoon to some interesting speeches on the question of the law as covered by the Franks Report, but I wish to deal particularly with agriculture. I am encouraged in doing so by the fact that in another place the Lord Privy Seal suggested to Members there that he would be glad to have any suggestions in regard to agriculture. The noble Marquess who opened the debate this afternoon also referred to the fact that the Government have invited suggestions before they put into operation matters arising from the Franks Report. Her Majesty's Government have already made reference in the gracious Speech to portions of the Agriculture Act, 1947, with which they propose to deal in due course.
  The Franks Committee have made certain recommendations on procedure so far as the agricultural executive committees are concerned, but, of course, those suggestions may be completely out of date when the legislation which is envisaged by the Government eventually conies into operation. In a debate in your Lordships' House on November 13 it was suggested by the Minister speaking on behalf of the Government that the alterations which the Government were seeking to make were likely to be particularly drastic in regard to Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947. The Franks Committee dealt particularly with the question of supervision and dispossession, both of which are referred to in that Act.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, quite rightly (it is also stated in the Report) that the Committee were not concerned with policy. But, of course, the
  recommendations which they have now made in their Report touch upon policy as it was at the time when the Report was drawn up; and as I said a moment ago, that may be altered in the light of future legislation. I personally—I cannot speak for other Members on this side of the House—should be sorry to see the powers of the county agricultural executive committees curtailed. In my view they have worked remarkably well since the passing of the Agriculture Act. They have done an honourable job extremely well, and they have been very fair in all their dealings. Under the Act, they were charged also with the duty of
  562
  "… promoting agricultural development and efficiency by such means as the Minister may direct and of exercising such functions as the Minister may delegate to the Committee …"
  If the powers of supervision and dispossession are to be taken completely out of the hands of the agricultural executive committees in the future, I feel that that may be the beginning of the end of the good work which they have done in the past.
  The Franks Committee have suggested that a new tribunal should be set up, and that recourse to supervision or arbitration, or anything of that sort which may be necessary, should not be entirely in the hands of the county agricultural executive committees, and that the occupier or the owner, the tenant or the landlord, should be able to approach a new independent tribunal. On this side of the House—and I think it is so elsewhere—we can see no reason whatever for the appointment of an additional tribunal. The Agricultural Land Tribunal is there, and even now, in extreme cases of supervision or dispossession, recourse is made to the decision of the Tribunal after the hearing of the evidence. So far as we can see there is no need whatever for an additional tribunal. Any matters which arise in the future—whether Part 11 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, is scrapped, or whether it is altered in any way—can well be referred in the first instance, if necessary, to the existing Agricultural Land Tribunal.
  The Franks Committee also deal with the question of appeal in regard to supervision orders. That is a matter upon which there is a considerable difference of opinion, and I hope that the Government, before they conic to any decision, will consider it seriously. The National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Union of Agricultural Workers are against the exercise of any appeal, whereas other bodies connected with agriculture think differently. The Wilson Committee thought in One direction and the Franks Committee are thinking in another direction, so it is obvious that there is a difference of opinion, which I hope the Government will consider and iron out before any fresh legislation is brought to your Lordships' House dealing with this question of supervision or with the alteration of Part II of the Act. My

  563
  Lords, that is all I wish to say on this Report. I wanted to be brief, but I was anxious to accept the invitation of the Lord Privy Seal so that, at any rate in your Lordships' House, while we have dealt with the legal aspects of the case this afternoon, there should be some voice to deal with the question raised in the Report of the future duties and functions of the county agricultural executive committees.
  5.2 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should not have thought it necessary to speak this afternoon but for the fact that two of the speeches—that of the noble Marquess and that of my noble friend who sits beside me—dealt specifically and at some length with the two points upon which I, as a member of the Franks Committee, had made reservations. I thought perhaps it would be right if I explained my reasons for disagreeing with my colleagues on those specific matters. Before I do so, I want to discharge one very pleasant duty: to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on a very fine maiden speech and a great oratorical effort. In a sense, I feel that a great politician has been lost, but the law has gained. It may be that he could combine the two, hut at any rate—and I say this as no mere formality—we all hope we shall hear him very often in this House, and not merely on legal subjects. The tradition of the House prevents me from having the temerity to disagree with him on some of the matters that he raised, and I propose to follow tradition; but on some other occasion I shall be very happy, if he gives me the opportunity, to try to cross swords with him.
  I want to say one or two things by way of preliminary and background. The first is that, as the House will appreciate. I agree with everything in the Report except the two matters on which I have made reservations. But, of course, as every noble Lord will appreciate who serves on a Committee, you agree with things on balance and with greater or less certainty. Often you feel that a particular point is not worth disagreeing about, although you have doubts about it. Therefore the fact that you have agreed with ninety-one recommendations does not mean in the least that you agree most fervently with all of them. Some you
  564
  agree with wholeheartedly, some you have some doubts about; and then conies the point where you feel that these are things you really cannot accept. And that is my own case. I felt it right to say that, because it may be that in the course of my (I hope) short remarks I shall not be agreeing with everything said in the Report, even outside the two reservations.
  Another point I should like to mention is that we heard a great deal of evidence, and the thing that seemed to us all of greatest importance—at any rate, it seemed to me of greatest importance—was the question of public inquiries. We heard little or no evidence (I think these are the words of the Report) to indicate that there was any dissatisfaction at all with the conduct of those inquiries. We never heard a single suggestion that the inspectors were not independent; that they were bound to make decisions because
  they were employed by a particular Minister. And, of course, we never heard any suggestion that the Minister concerned had prompted any decision. We heard not a single word of dissatisfaction as to the way the inquiries were conducted—and here I can speak with very considerable experience from both sides of the fence. When I was a Minister I had to make a large number of decisions based on the reports of inspectors. I never heard a single complaint about the way in which the inquiries were conducted or about the inspectors. Since I ceased to be a Minister I have had some professional experience, and I would say exactly the same thing. Therefore in dealing with these public inquiries we are not dealing with something which is arousing universal or large-scale discontent.
  A considerable number of these inquiries relate to compulsory purchases of land, and I am absolutely convinced that an enormous number of inquiries of that type are the result of the feeling, which I am afraid I share, that the basis of compensation for compulsory acquisition of land is unfair. Indeed, the Report says in terms that a large number of these inquiries would be avoided if a fair basis of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land were provided.
  With that background may I now examine two specific questions, the appointment of inspectors and whether their reports should be published? On

  565
  the question of the appointment of inspectors, we are here, of course, talking mainly of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who have the bulk of the inquiries. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Transport both have occasional inquiries, as I think do the Ministry of Power; but I believe that in those cases they are ad hoc inquiries. The Ministers appoint a barrister who is not in their service. I think on the basis of a rota. He conducts the inquiry and, so far as I know, generally there is no question of policy involved and no question really arises. I do not think that there has been any complaint about such inquiries and the Committee did not seek to deal with them: they were considering the bulk of the inquiries, those carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, by inspectors who are in the employment of the Minister.
  I suppose that it is thought to be wrong that a servant of the Minister who has to make the decision should conduct the inquiry, and it is for that reason that it is proposed in the Report that the inspectors should be appointed by the Lord
  Chancellor. That would give inspectors an independence which, presumably, they do not have at the present time. Alternatively, as the noble and learned Marquess would say, if they have such independence, it is important that they should appear to the general public w have it: and that can be secured only by their being appointed by somebody else.
  Of course, in fact, the decision is not the decision of the inspector. That is a factor which is constantly overlooked. He is not there to make a decision; he is not asked to make a decision. He is asked merely to ascertain certain facts and to put those facts before the Minister, who himself takes responsibility for the decision and is answerable to Parliament if he makes a wrong one. Therefore, if I may say so with all humility, to regard this as a judicial proceeding is utterly wrong. It is not a judicial proceeding at all; in my opinion, it is an administrative decision, but, of course, the Minister and everybody concerned have to act in a judicial spirit.
  If it is accepted that the inspector's duly is to ascertain the facts (and that includes hearing the evidence and the argument; inspecting the locus in quo. and doing everything necessary to inform
  566
  the Minister of the position; and he may make a recommendation, if he feels so disposed, on the basis of the policy of the Department: he must have that in mind), then I say that the question of his being independent of the Ministry is utterly irrelevant. Indeed, I would go further, and say that it is desirable that the inspector should be a part of the Ministry so that he may know the policy of the Ministry and have it in mind when ascertaining the facts and making inquiries.
  Let me give an example. Suppose it is the policy of the Department that there shall be a green belt between town A and town B, and that that green belt should be preserved. That is the policy of the local authorities concerned as well, and it is embodied in their development plan. It is important that fie inspector should know that that is the policy, and should understand and appreciate it when conducting the inquiry. If he were completely independent and divorced, from the Ministry, I think he would be less competent to carry out his duties of advising the Minister and ascertaining the facts than if he is a part of the Ministry.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I ask the noble Lord one question on this aspect? I follow him in his point, hut would it not be equally satisfactory in practice, and more reassuring to the public at large, if the inspectors, instead of being a part of the machinery of the Department, were informed at the inquiry by evidence given on behalf of the Department what the policy was?
  LORD SILKIN: With great respect and humility, I think that the noble and learned Marquess is rather confusing the issue. I think that what he says would be right if the inspector had to make a decision; but he does not. It is not his job to make a decision; his job is only to inform the Minister of the facts.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: If he has to make no decision, he does not need to know what the policy is. He has to find on the facts before him.
  LORD SILKIN: I thought I was explaining that. I was trying to show, by illustration, that if that is the policy, then it is important that, knowing that policy, the inspecor should go down and I inspect the area; should see the alleged

  567
  green belt and satisfy himself that it is still there; that it has not largely disappeared; that it is worth preserving, and so on. If that is so, as I say, I see no particular virtue in having inspectors divorced from the Department on whose behalf they are carrying out inquiries. Indeed, it would be a tremendous administrative inconvenience.
  I might even go further, and say that in the case of a Department carrying out 5,000 or 6,000 inquiries a year all over the country, it would make administration impossible, if they were not in constant touch with the inspectors. I think that the Government have accepted that, and I believe that they are right. But in their desire to save the face of the Committee, or in their generally laudable desire to compromise, I think that they have gone too far. They accept that the inspectors should be in the service of the Ministry, employees of the Ministry; hut they are prepared to agree, not that they should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor but that the Lord Chancellor should approve their appointment. That seems to me to be making the worst of all worlds. It is at least arguable that they should be in the Department of the Lord Chancellor. That is the view of the Committee. Or let them remain in the Department of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. But to ask the Lord Chancellor to advise, to be consulted, on their appointment, strikes me as being completely meaningless.
  How is he to carry out that obligation? Is the Lord Chancellor to interview every potential inspector? I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount realises that inspectors are not born: they usually evolve from other positions in the Ministry. Very often they are promoted from one job to another, until, in due course, they become inspectors. Is the noble and learned Viscount going to be consulted about every person in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government who is to be promoted to the position of inspector? I just do not understand how that duty is going to be carried out, or can be carried out.
  Moreover, when the noble and learned Viscount has been consulted, does any Member of your Lordships' House really believe that the personnel of the inspectorate will be in the slightest degree
  568
  different from what it would have been if the Minister had appointed them without consulting the Lord Chancellor? On what basis is the noble and learned Viscount to say he disapproves of one individual here and there for appointment as inspector? They will be exactly the same people. It will be creating only a facade, a sham. It will be pretending to the public that these inspectors are independent when in fact they are no more independent as a result of their appointment having been approved by the noble and learned Viscount than they otherwise would have been. In my view it is giving them a false status, and I entirely disapprove of any facade, especially when it does no good.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment to ask whether he has any idea of the number of inspectors with whom we are dealing? Is it one dozen, two dozen or many more? It would be interesting for the House to know.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I will leave the noble Lord to make a little calculation for himself. There are between 5,000 and 6,000 inquiries a year. I do not know that inspectors are able to deal with more than one inquiry a day. Inquiries generally last more than one day so that the number of inspectors involved is quite substantial and would run into hundreds rather than tens. The short answer is that I do not know how many inspectors there are.
  On the question of publishing inspectors' reports, I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of my reservations or to put them in the forefront of this Report—I was going to say "this magnificent Report" but perhaps modesty should prevent my saying that. I believe it is a good Report, and I can say that all the more because I was ill when the final touches were put upon it. I had nothing to do with the final wording of the Report except for one paragraph which my noble friend quoted with approval, and, of course, the reservations. So while I do not want to exaggerate the question of publishing inspectors' reports, I feel that the public should be satisfied that the arguments presented at the inquiry, and the facts brought out, have been appreciated by the inspector and properly presented to the Minister. I think it would be wrong if that were not so. I have seen hundreds of decision letters and those

  569
  letters set out quite fully the case of both sides, so that the appellant is fully aware of points that have been brought to the notice of the Minister. There is no secrecy in the process by which the Minister makes up his mind. It is the recommendation of the inspector which is not stated.
  The Report proposes that it should be open to anybody who feels that the facts as presented to the Minister are inaccurate or unfairly weighted against an appellant, to have an opportunity of making representations on those grounds. Although that would, of course, considerably lengthen the procedure, I should have no objection to that. It is the publication of the recommendation by the inspector to which I strongly object. The whole thing turns on one's conception of the function of the inspector. If his function is to ascertain the facts, to
  find out. everything he can about the case and present those facts to the Minister, then his recommendation is irrelevant and is merely one stage in the process of the Minister making up his mind.
  I can assure noble Lords that the Minister gets a great deal of advice from other people in the Department as well, and sometimes from other Departments. There is a reference to that in the Report. The criticism made is not that he should get this advice but that it should not be known to the appellant that such advice has been given. I agree with that; hut the point I am making is that the inspector's recommendation is one stage only and only one piece of the advice which the Minister gets in the course of making up his mind. By the time a case comes up to the Minister—and not all of them de—he has possibly had advice from the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Department, from the head of the department dealing with those matters and front all kinds of people. I believe it would be wrong to make it obligatory to publish all the advice received by the Minister in the process of making up his mind. It would be embarrassing. It would cramp the inspector's style and also embarrass the Minister; and it would be no comfort to the appellant.
  Suppose the recommendation of the inspector was in conflict with the decision of the Minister. That would be no ground for reversing the Minister's decision. Would it really be any satisfaction to the appellant if he knew that the inspector hid recommended one course and the
  570
  Minister had decided on another? It is true that the Minister would give his reasons, but then he already does so; and I can assure your Lordships that the reasons given are, and always have been, given quite fully. One may not always be happy about the decision, but at least one always knows from the decision letter why the decision has been made. Would it give an unsuccessful appellant any great satisfaction if he knew that the inspector had disagreed with the decision of the Minister? If, on the other hand, the recommendation of the inspector is the same as the decision of the Minister, then it is irrelevant whether it is published or not. I do not suppose any appellant would make any difficulty if he got a decision in his favour; therefore this would operate only when the decision is against a person, and I submit that the nature of the inspector's recommendation is then only of academic interest.
  It was for those reasons, and because I felt that my most excellent colleagues on the Committee were misconceiving the situation, that I felt it necessary to reserve myself on those two points; but they are only two out of ninety-one and I have agreed on the other eighty-nine points, with greater or less enthusiasm. I felt that I ought to put my own position as strongly as I could, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take these views very carefully into consideration, as I know the noble and learned Viscount will, before they finally make up their minds on these two points. Apart from that, I am exceedingly gratified by the excellent response which the Report has received both in the other place and in this House, and I should like to congratulate the Government on the prompt action they have taken—unlike that in many other cases which I could quote, but which, in this harmonious atmosphere, I do not propose to quote, when they have allowed Reports to remain on the shelf for a great number of years.
  5.31 p.m.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords. I should like to describe, in a few words, the excitement with which heard the revelations—revelations to me—of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his maiden speech, regarding pensions appeals tribunals in respect of disabled ex-Service men. I hope that it is not

  571
  unparliamentary to feel excitement, always provided that it is properly restrained, but I have the most personal and poignant experiences of such cases, in playing the part of the appellant's friend. All these cases occurred within the last few years and certainly since 1947. In each case I was informed, officially and in writing, that the onus rested upon the soldier to prove the
  connection between his disability and war service, and the hearing was conducted entirely on that basis. That seems to me to indicate a somewhat terrible and even shameful failure, at some point, properly to instruct the tribunal.
  I have a particular case in the front of my mind: that of a neighbour of mine in Yorkshire, suffering from the dreadful and still incurable disease of disseminated sclerosis. His story is, I think, worthy of the telling. He was a despatch rider in the war, riding continually for nearly a year over extremely rough country, and frequently while feeling ill. Being, a good soldier, he thought his business was not to go sick but to carry on, and as a result he had no medical record to show to the pensions tribunal when, many years later, he made his claim. His claim was rejected and so, later on, in my presence, was his appeal. That is the sort of case. I believe by no means standing alone, in which the good soldier has been penalised, whereas the bad soldier who had continually run alone to the medical officer would have benefited. I think your Lordships will all agree with me that this is entirely wrong
  I have spoken on this matter before, once in your Lordships' House and several times outside. I have spoken on each occasion from a position of weakness and ignorance. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, spoke from a position of strength and knowledge, and I should like to think that some of that strength and knowledge had been imparted to me, and that I shall now be able to put it to good effect. I feel that it hardly becomes me to congratulate him on his maiden speech, having made my own so recently; but, with that experience still vividly in mind, perhaps I may be allowed to express my envy and admiration of his tour de force this afternoon.
  5.34 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords. I hope your Lordships will not take it amiss if follow my noble friend Lord St. Oswald in making my first point my personal congratulations to my noble and learned friend Lord Denning on the admirable speech which the House heard this afternoon. As I am sure all your Lordships know, and as I know so well, Lord Denning has one of the most brilliant and penetrating minds in the law to-day: and I hope, as has already been said, that we shall have the advantage of that brilliant mind illuminating our problems on many future occasions.
  I am sure that we all are grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for introducing this debate, and not the least because there is no one more fit to do it. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, reminded us, some ten years ago the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. introduced the Preservation of the Rights of the Subject Bill, and three years later he spoke in support of a similar Bill introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. We have seen to-day that after these years of office he is just as ready to make a forceful contribution in debate whenever the rights of the citizen seem to be imperilled by particular proposals or the impact of various procedures.
  This debate is very welcome to Her Majesty's Government. On behalf of the Government I have taken note of the welcome given in all parts of the House to this Report and to the Government's action. It was striking, just as it was striking to hear my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General, in winding up a similar debate in another place, describe that debate as "very remarkable and astonishing ". And it is indeed a great thing and a clearly-shown fact that in another place and this House, and indeed throughout the country, the proposals of this distinguished Committee have received a remarkable consensus of welcome. I venture to think that it reflects the enduring responsibility of Parliament for the liberty of the subject and the rule of law, which we all hope will never be dimmed.
  Though it has been done before, I should like to pay my tribute to the members of the Franks Committee. After

  573
  all. I appointed the Committee, and therefore I have a special reason for gratitude for what they have done. I think I was extremely lucky to get Sir Oliver Franks as Chairman of the Committee. And I should like especially to express my own personal gratitude, as well as that of the Government, to the noble Lords from this House, Lord Linlithgow, Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Silkin—who told me he had to go to keep a very pressing appointment—for the contributions that they have made. I think I estimate correctly the mood of your Lordships that on this occasion, at any rate, your Lordships would allow the Government to take a little credit, a modest credit, for the speed with which they have considered the Report and the fact that we have, as your Lordships have heard, adopted seventy-one recommendations, either completely or broadly; eight more to a lesser or minor degree; and reserved twelve (in whole or in part) for further consideration; and not accepted four.
  I should like at this moment to answer one of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was good enough to ask me, because I think it reflects on what the acceptance means. The noble Lord was concerned because we had accepted the recommendation that the legal chairmen of tribunals should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and he was worried by the words" in general. "May I give him the two examples where I do not desire the right? The first is in the case of a tribunal which has extremely important administrative functions—that is, the Traffic Commissioners. The noble Lord knows better than anyone else in this House that, apart from the judicial work they do, in times of emergency (into which I am not going because the noble Lord knows them so well) their administrative functions are of tremendous importance; and I feel that the Minister of 'Transport ought, on balance, to have the appointment.
  The only other example that comes into my mind is that of the local valuation courts, which, as the noble Lord will remember, are appointed by local authorities and not by the Minister. Therefore, they are not within the mischief
  which I think the noble Lord had in mind. I want to assure him that the word "general" is not used in order to provide an alibi, but to cover cases such as
  574
  those. I cannot think of any more at the moment. Those are two that I considered when making up my mind on this point.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thank the noble Lord. I would now just take another point made by the noble Lord. I think it would be convenient if I dealt with it at this moment. He raised a question with regard to inquiries set up by the Minister of Power. I should like to draw his attention to paragraph 242 of the Report. From that he will see that the Committee consider that the broad principles are applicable to procedures not specifically mentioned in the Report but within the terms of reference. Therefore noble Lords should not think that because procedures are not mentioned they are necessarily outside the spirit of Franks. The noble Lord will have noted that my noble friend the Minister of Power came in to hear that. I can assure the noble Lord that we will discuss together specifically the points which he raised. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to think that I am not going to deal with his other points. I shall deal with them in the general course of argument, but those were specific points which I did not want to miss.
  The noble Lord. Lord Rea, who also was kind enough to intimate to me that he was obliged to leave the Chamber, mentioned wider points outside the terms of reference of the Committee. He mentioned the broad question of subsidiary legislation. On that, I would remind him that the Government are under pledge to get rid of the Defence Regulations in this Parliament. We have already reduced them, since we came into office, from 215 to seventeen substantive Regulations, and I have given the House an undertaking that it certainly will not be my fault if the remainder are not disposed of by the end of this Parliament. Then Lord Rea raised a very interesting point—I think your Lordships will agree it: is one that is too extensive to cover as a tangent from this debate—and that was the oft-mooted question of whether subsidiary legislation should be amendable or not. I will again consider that; the proposal that it should be amendable has a weighty advocate in Lord Rea. But

  575
  do not think I can deal with that matter now, because I am very anxious to deal with the specific points coming within the Report.
  Lord Silkin raised a subject to which the Committee briefly draw attention, and that is the question of compensation. I realise the importance of that matter, and I should like him to know that the point raised by the Committee and by him is very much in the minds of the Government, though it is a point of great complexity and difficulty. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, raised a slightly more limited question as to whether I had suggested too narrow terms of reference to the Committee. His point—if I may so put it—was mainly the Crichel. Down point. It is important to realise that Crichel Down was, as indeed the noble Marquess pointed out, outside any ordinary line of procedure. And it must always be an instrument of a Minister that if some special point arises which seems to show some injustice he can appoint a special ad hoc inquiry, as was done by my friend in that case.
  Whether there should be a more regular procedure I am not at all convinced, because those of us who have been in Parliament a long time—some of us have been in Parliament a relatively long time and others a very long time—know that these occasions do arise and the safety valve given by an inquiry to consider a particular point is important not only for the Government of the day but for the general confidence of the public. I think that my noble friend Lord Reading will agree that the terms of reference I gave to the Committee certainly allowed plenty of scope for both thought and action. I hope he will take that as some mitigation of the fact that I only confined them, as he put it, to Herculean labours and not to the greater labours of entirely remaking the world.
  I think your Lordships have entirely accepted the fact that the basic principles on which the Committee acted—namely, openness, fairness and impartiality—are all of the utmost importance in the minds of everyone in the country, and these they describe as the general and closely-linked characteristics which should mark special procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was anxious to point out that he was praising with very faint damns
  576
  and not damning with faint praise. But he did make some remarks about platitudes at the beginning of the Report. I say to Lord Chorley, in the friendliest approach, that "platitude" is only another word for "truism"; and the really terrifying thing about truisms is that they are true. And it is the need for openness, for fairness and for impartiality which I think is in the minds of people of all Parties to a greater extent than I have ever seen crystallised on any issue of this sort.
  I was very interested to hear Lord Chorley's analysis, but I think it is fair to remember that the Committee themselves point out that although these are essential characteristics of their subject matter, that is not to say that they must be present in the same way and to the same extent in all its parts. That is a point we have to consider—indeed we must consider it as the first point in our examination.
  I am glad that the Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to-day, and indeed I think everyone, have said that these special tribunals and procedures are necessary. The Committee regard both as essential to our society. They consider that the tendency for issues arising from legislative schemes to be referred to special tribunals is likely to grow, rather than to diminish; and further, that tribunals have certain characteristics which give them advantages over the courts—namely, cheapness, accessibility, freedom from technicalities, expedition and expert knowledge of their particular subject. As has been pointed out. I think, with a vast majority of opinion in its favour, tribunals should be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication, not as part of the machinery of administration, as is stated in paragraph 40. I do not want to go into this aspect at too great length, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, know that, by reason of my taking that view, I have tried, being especially in touch with young lawyers, to make them realise the importance of seeing that these tribunals are imbued with the spirit of the law and of giving the highest standards of the law to their service, whether it be as advocate or as chairman.

  577
  I want to direct your Lordships' attention to only one other point, which has not been emphasised, although it is of great importance. The Government of a country are responsible for the general success of their administrative procedures and they have to take all the aspects into account. There is one matter which I ask your Lordships to remember. It is probably true to say that all the ninety-five recommendations of the Committee extended the rights of citizens, but imposed some additional burden on the administration of the country. We as a Government have to face this point. One Ministry has some 6,000 appeals to deal with; and, similarly, there are some 50,000 adjudications annually under the National Insurance Act. That is a most formidable administrative problem.
  Magna Carta says—and I have always agreed with it: to none shall we deny, to none shall we delay, justice; and if you delay justice too long, it becomes a denial. I only want to put this point to your Lordships, because we have to consider it fully. The Committee themselves faced the fact that some at least of their recommendations would lead to increased delay in process of administration; and in paragraph 353 they say this:
  "We do not claim that the effect of our recommendations taken together will be to reduce the time taken by the entire process. We are indeed doubtful whether any recommendations within the scope of our inquiry could produce any saving of time."
  The Committee also recognise that there is at the moment public criticism of the long time taken. We must face up to that and try to find a synthesis between good procedure and avoidance of delay. But it is a point which I think it is fair I should put to your Lordships, because it is of tremendous importance, especially to the smaller people who are involved in these various matters that affect their land. We have to try here, as always, to strike a balance between the needs of the community and the needs of the individual.
  Now I would turn to one or two specific points. The Government agree with the Committee's thesis that there should be a statutory body set up to keep the constitution and working of tribunals under continuous review; as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said, to act primarily as a watchdog. We think it would be better to have a single
  578
  Council appointed jointly by myself and the Secretary of State for Scotland,
  instead of two Councils, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. But I hasten to add this, in ease any of my countrymen think I have forgotten my native land: that I think there should be one Council with a separate panel for matters of special concern to Scotland, because many tribunals—for example, the National Insurance tribunals—are common to both England and Scotland, and it would be a mistake to have two separate Councils. I believe that Scotland will be better served by representation on one Council, for Scottish members will thereby be able to keep in touch with the general development. Apart from general oversight, the Government intend the Council to play an important advisory function in connection with the membership and procedure of tribunals; and, of course, the Government would take their advice on proposals to set up new tribunals, amalgamate existing tribunals, alter rules of procedure and the like. The Government intend to introduce legislation as soon as possible to set up the Council, because they intend and desire to refer to the Council, when it is set up, some of the recommendations of the Franks Committee for further examination.
  May I next say a word or two about the chairmen and members of tribunals. I agree that the composition of tribunals is a matter of cardinal importance; and I agree that no rules of procedure or rights of appeal will mitigate a lack of judicial quality and general good sense and competence in tribunal membership. The Government fully recognise the force of the criticism which has been made, particularly by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that tribunal members should be truly independent. The Franks Committee made it clear, as I think has been pointed out in the debate to-day, that they had had no evidence that any influence is, in fact, exerted on members by Government Departments. Nevertheless, they were anxious that the independence should be apparent, and they recommended that the chairmen should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor or, in Scotland, by the Lord President or Lord Advocate; and that members should be appointed by the proposed Council. The Government sympathise with the Committee's objectives,

  579
  and they agree that in general the Lord Chancellor, or, in Scotland, the Lord President, ought to appoint the chairmen. I have told the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, of the tribunals which will be exceptions to that principle. But the Government also accept that the chairman should usually have legal qualifications, although they do not want to be taken (and I am sure the House will be with us in this) as intending to dismiss good lay chairmen of existing tribunals, or never to appoint lay chairmen to any tribunals. Judicial qualities are not the exclusive preserve of the lawyer, although we hope that we learn something in the course of our experience.
  On the other point, after deep consideration the Government have reached the conclusion that they cannot accept the appointment by the Council of members of tribunals, and the main reason for that view is the accountability to Parliament. I should like to develop that point, because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was rather worried about it. The kernel of accountability is that somebody can be questioned in Parliament as to whether he has appointed the proper person. By the moving of a Resolution in either House, I can be questioned as to whether my appointments of judges are right, or whether my appointments of magistrates are right. The kernel of Parliamentary responsibility is that there is someone who is accountable. On the other side, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, may well make the point to me that, although a procedure can be evolved out of our Constitution, there is a constitutional convention very seldom to use accountability in judicial offices. Similarly, there has been a tendency in a constitutional evolution for Ministers to say: "That is the responsibility of someone, and I will not answer questions in the House." For example, there are, as the noble Lord knows, the day-to-day matters in running a nationalised industry. But it is a doubtful tendency: it is one that has to be watched, because Parliamentary responsibility is the essence of our Constitution.
  I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had in mind that here we are dealing with 18,000 to 19,000 members, spread over
  580
  the whole country in an infinite variety of places. Although my instincts were all in favour of independence—I think the noble Lord will agree so far as I am personally concerned—I felt that to take all that outside the accountability of the Minister would be a dangerous matter. I hope the noble Lord will do me the honour, which he has often done before, of considering whether there is not more in that point than appears at first sight.
  What we propose—and again I am not sure that this was entirely clear—is that before appointing members, Ministers should consult the Council, so that the Council will be able to see whether the panels from which members were taken are on the right lines and broadly representative of people having the proper knowledge and qualities. Of course, co-ordination of policy with regard to appointments by different Ministers would be obtained through the Council. I know that is a very difficult point, but I wanted noble Lords to appreciate that this was not a bureaucratic reaction but a Parliamentary reaction. I hope the noble Lord will consider that point of view.
  I do not think I need say much generally about the procedure before tribunals, because we accept the general tenor of the recommendations in Chapters 6, 7 and 8, and I wish only to deal with one or two points. We accept, for example, that a document has to be given to the appellant setting out the main points of the case he has to meet.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble and learned Viscount forgive me? Has he finished on the question of appointments?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Lord tell me what he has in mind?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble and learned Viscount has dealt with the queries raised about the appointment of members of tribunals. I wish also to question him, if he will permit me, upon the appointment of the inspectors.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am dividing my remarks into tribunals and procedure on acquisition of land; and the appointment of inspectors clearly arises on that. I am grateful to the

  581
  noble Lord for telling me—of course, I was not trying to avoid that point. We accept that the appellant should know the case he has to meet, the recommendations on attendance, on ability to question witnesses and on the decision of the tribunal to be in writing and the rights of appeal. We accept all that. On the question of legal representation, the Government propose to go further than the Franks Committee. We propose to abolish all restrictions on legal representation before tribunals, subject only to the further consideration of one minor point where the Franks Committee are against legal representation. We should like to look at that matter a little further, because it relates to the local service committees under the National Health Service which do not adjudicate finally. Apart from that small point, we want to remove restrictions altogether.
  On the question of legal aid the noble Marquess. Lord Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, both appealed to me. This is a difficult matter, when I have so many appeals to me to extend legal aid—and the queue is a formidable one. My noble friend mentioned the existing arrangements for legal aid and advice, with which I myself am very concerned, and legal aid in magistrates' courts in matrimonial cases. I do not think that, on refection, your Lordships will ask me to go further than that. I should think your Lordships will ask me to do two things: first, get rid of this queue—and, if I may say so without offence, the Government have got rid of quite a lot of queues—and try to cover all these admirable activities as quickly as I can. I will do my best, but I cannot, on a matter of finance, go further than that.
  On costs we are prepared, as your Lordships know, that the out-of-pocket costs for travelling expenses of appellants and their witnesses, and compensation for loss of time, should be rationalised. We cannot undertake that all costs in every case should be paid. There is a big problem here, and I am sure the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, would agree that if we did that completely we might encourage over-legalisation in cases where it is not helpful. I had to introduce the Beveridge proposals on Workmen's Compensation in another place years ago, and the number of appeals I received from my trade union colleagues
  582
  in the House to beware of over-legalisation and of frightening people by an over-rigid procedure was extraordinary. That is one of the things we must watch.
  The noble Lord, Lord Chorley. asked me whether there should be an appeal from the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Commissioners and the National Assistance Appeals Tribunal. The Committee are indeed, as he said, against it, and I have noted not only what he said but what the right honourable gentleman Mr. James Griffiths, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, said in winding up the debate. I understood that it has always been believed, not quite on the grounds I have mentioned but on the general ground that it is in the public interest to make an end of litigation, that the General Council of the Trades Union Congress have been against a further appeal up to now; and I should like to reconsider that point in view of what Mr. Griffiths and Lord Chorley have said.
  May if just say this out of order: that the other two points which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, raised, as to giving persons indirectly interested the right of appeal, and giving further information, are, I think, two of the most difficult points which we can face. As I have said, we have got 6,000 appeals already. To increase that enormously would add greatly to the delays that exist. On the other point, I notice that the Franks Committee said something about citizens advice bureaux and the like. I want the noble Lord to know that I am ready to consider everything on that matter. I have considered it since he raised it but I have not had any brainwave on it yet. As he said, in most cases somebody who is worried about what may happen will be on the qui vive.
  On appeals generally, I do not think that there is any real difference and I think Lord Chorley was almost a lone voice in saying that there was more to be said for the Conseil d'état than the Committee thought. I do not think it would be profitable, 'because the Corn-mince turned it down. They have also said that a good deal of it was outside the terms of reference, and I think myself that if we can put into operation what the Committee have suggested, the urgency (of which I think Professor Hamson and

  583
  others have spoken) of the Conseil d'état largely disappears. We are dealing with the facts of the problem if in a different way.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me about the agricultural aspect, and he recalled what my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn said in the debate on the Address: that we believe that the broad conclusions of the Franks Committee are in accord with public opinion and that we agree that the agricultural executive committees should not have both executive and judicial functions, although we do not imply any criticism of the way they have carried out their dual responsibilities. As my noble friend said, the Government propose to repeal the penal provisions of Part II of the 1947 Act, so I do not think one need spend much time on how the Franks recommendations would have affected them if they remained.
  With regard to the question of the security of tenure provisions, on the assumption that they are amended to give effect to the changes agreed between the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union, we think that in these circumstances the county agricultural executive committees should no longer exercise a judicial function in relation to notice to quit. We agree with Lord Wise that we should not have a new tribunal but that this should go straight to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, from whom there would be an appeal to the High Court. I appoint the Agricultural Land Tribunals, and, whatever one of them may have done in a particular case, I do not think that anyone has attacked their independence.
  My Lords, I am sorry to have taken so long, but your Lordships have raised the points and I feel that they are not only deserving of an answer but they are important points indeed. I want just to say a few words about the other side, the administrative procedures. As I have said, we recognise that the powers of a modern State, although exercised for the good of the community and for necessary purposes, must involve a conflict between the interests of the State and those of the individual citizen. We entirely accept the broad objectives of the Franks proposals, to give to citizens a greater sense of fair hearing and to bring the process
  584
  by which the final decision is reached as far as possible into the open and establish in this administrative field the rule of law. I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, who said earlier that he thought that it would take legislation to deal with most of the proposals. I very much hope that that will not be so.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not think I said "most". I said it would be necessary for some.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I apologise to my noble friend if I have put the emphasis wrong. On this side I think a great deal can be done by administrative action, and I want to see that administrative action coming into operation in January. I do not want us to delay; I want us to get on with it and improve the procedures as soon as we possibly can. Sometimes we shall have to be tentative sometimes we shall find a better and more improved procedure in a short time. But let us get on with it at once; and I am sure I can say to my colleagues in the Government that I have your Lordships behind me in that. As I say, we will make a start in January if it can possibly be done.
  These are—if I may summarise them in order to save your Lordships' time—the ones we hope to get on with at once: recommendation 67, which deals with making available particulars of the case before the inquiry; recommendation 71, where the Ministry or other authority is to explain proposals fully at the inquiry and support them by all evidence; recommendation 75, which requires officials of the Department to give evidence at the inquiry in certain circumstances; recommendations 80 and 82, providing for the publication of inspectors' reports; recommendation 84, requiring Minister's letter of decision to set out full findings on inferences of fact and reasons for decision; and recommendation 92, requiring local planning authorities to discuss applications with the applicants. All these, I think, can be put into full operation. I am glad to say that some of them are already the practice, though they may not be quite acceptable in the form of the recommendation by the Franks Committee.
  May I say one or two more words about the specific proposals? I agree that it is an elementary principle of justice that

  585
  an objector should know in advance what case he has to meet, and I am advised by my colleagues to say that the Ministers concerned will in future require authorities to see that their case is properly set out, before an inquiry opens. In due course the Government intend to issue rules of procedure to make it obligatory. There is one difficulty which has given me a good deal of anxiety, and that is the Franks Committee's suggestion about a statement of policy. The difficulty of issuing a statement of policy in relation to a particular fact is that the objector will then think that his case is prejudged and will come to the inquiry without much hope. The way I prefer to deal with it is for the Minister to make available a collection of his policy decisions in general matters. May I take, for example, the question of a petrol station? He may say that the limits have been reached in regard to roads where new petrol stations might be erected, or something like that. But to try to say, "This is my policy in respect of a specific application ", is, I think, very difficult and might do exactly the opposite of what we want to do. Therefore we want to approach this matter cautiously.
  Now I conic to a much more vexed question—that of inspectors. I fully realise the reasons why the Franks Committee and my noble friend Lord Reading would like them transferred to me. But I ask your Lordships to look at this question a little more closely, because the practical considerations persuaded me tha the case was against transfer. I consider the key to the problem is expressly recognised by the Franks Committee in paragraph 303: that the inspectors must be kept closely in touch with the several Departments to whose Ministers they report. As I have said, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have some 6,000 appeals and some 103 inspectors. They will prevent delay in those appeals only if the inspectors are, as the Franks Committee recommended and approved, kept in close touch with the Departments. As has already been said, the Committee had no complaint about the way in which they did their work.
  We then come to the question of what is the proper safeguard. One point of view is that there is no safeguard unless the appointments are entirely given to me. But if they are entirely given to me and then have to work cheek by jowl with
  586
  the other people in the Departments, that does not seem to be a substantial difference from the present situation. Once you say it is necessary that they should work closely with the Departments, they must work with the Departments. I am sorry that the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, did not agree with us, but we thought that it would be a safeguard if I approved of every appointment—if every appointment was brought to me and nobody could be dismissed unless I consented.
  This is an interesting matter. I have almost the same number of persons to deal with in regard to justices of the peace—somewhere between 18,000 and 20,000 people. I go through the biography of everyone who is put up by an advisory committee for appointment as a justice of the peace, and any point that
  arises is of course checked by my officers. I do not see everyone who is appointed a justice of the peace—I cannot but I do see all and every relevant fact about him. I should have thought that the fact that I see it, and that my knowledge is supplemented as necessary, is quite helpful, and that most people would think it was better than merely having an appointment by a local advisory committee without its being checked by me. I think that is the general view. I am only saying "by me" because I happen to be Lord Chancellor—
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble and learned Viscount help me to this extent? I appreciate his difficulty. To appoint 103 inspectors is not nearly so big a job as appointing 11,000 justices of the peace. But does the noble and learned Viscount, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, accept this principle which is clearly laid down in the Franks Report—I am reading the last four lines of paragraph 40:
  "Although the relevant statutes do not in all cases expressly enact that tribunals are to consist entirely of persons outside the Government service, the use of the term `tribunal' in legislation undoubtedly bears this connotation, and the intention of Parliament to provide for the independence of tribunals is clear and unmistakable."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. I do not want to make any false point with the noble Lord. I entirely accept that with regard to tribunals. But with regard to inspectors the position is, of course, different.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is where the noble and learned Viscount and I fundamentally disagree. I say that, right the way through, the Franks Report treats an inspector as a tribunal. That is my reading of the Franks Report, that an inspector should be independent.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid the noble Lord cannot have it quite right, because whether the inspectors were appointed by the Minister or by me they would still be Government servants, paid as civil servants. They would still have to come through the Civil Service Commission.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, but they would not be the servants of the Minister, of the Department which they are going to work in. In other words, the inspectors appointed by the Minister of Power would not be the servants of the Minister of Power, but would be independent persons appointed with the approval of the Lord Chancellor.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He is going to be different from every other servant of the Ministry of Power, in that the Minister of Power can, of course, appoint or dismiss any other servant. He cannot appoint or dismiss these people without my consent. Therefore, I am taking up the intermediate position between the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, who would have them appointed by the Minister simpliciter. I would prefer that there should be this safeguard, because these representations can be made to me and no one, I think, would believe that the Lord Chancellor, who appoints so many of the Judiciary, would ever allow anybody to be victimised.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I feel that this is not the time to pursue' the point, as the hour is getting late, but may I say that the public will never accept wholeheartedly the Franks Report unless the principle is accepted as I have enunciated it. The halfway is no good. There is no confidence in this. As the head of the Lord Chancellor's own Department has said, there is widespread misapprehension, and it will not be cleared up until the Government unreservedly accept that principle on inspectors.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth spoke of "widespread misapprehension ". I have tried to dispel some of it, and I want to put this additional argument. Up to now we have been dealing with the position of the inspectors without publication of their reports—which I feel is very important. We are now accepting the recommendations on publication of reports and on the expansion of the Minister's decision to include recommendations. So everyone will now know the facts and what the inspector has said. I have always thought that the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was that if the Minister disagrees with the inspector he does so because he thinks the inspector is wrong or because policy demands it; and the Minister can justify his decision to this House or to another place. We have all had to do that in our time. Parliament then knows exactly what the inspector has said. I would ask the noble Lord to consider that point.
  The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, thought we had "cooled down" on the question of recommendations. May I put the position, as I wish to make it quite clear? In the general run of cases, except security cases and in regard to Service Departments, the full report of the inspector will be published. In some cases, however, the report will not include the recommendations—either because the inspector does not consider it appropriate to make specific recommendations or because the Minister asks not for recommendations but rather for a factual report of the inquiry. But where recommendations are made in the report they will be published as part of the report. I hope that will allay the fear of my noble friend. We have considered very carefully the question of publication and have come down in favour. No amendment of the law is needed, and the change will be brought about as soon as possible. Here again we shall have to feel our way. I hope that when we have tried one method we may find it possible to make improvements, and I am not going to tie myself to the letter to-night; but I am tying myself quite strongly to the principle of publication and to making inspectors' reports available. I hope that will take place early in the new year. I do not think that at this stage I need

  589
  trouble your Lordships with the details. I have explained that where Departments are concerned with, say, acquiring land, officials will give evidence. In other cases officials will give evidence when the Department has made a statement as to its position with regard to the land.
  There is only one other word I want to say with regard to costs. Long years of applying for costs and resisting applications for orders for costs have convinced me that here we are on entirely different terrain. If noble Lords feel that I am wrong I shall be grateful if they will write to me about it, but it has been suggested, and we are not prepared to agree, that, in general, costs should be awarded to successful objectors or applicants. I must point out that it might be very unfair to give costs to successful applicants and to withhold costs from unsuccessful objectors—this on the grounds of equity and not merely meanness—because there may be a policy reason which defeats one objector and allows another in. In these circumstances I believe that it would be quite wrong to make that the test. I believe the right course would be to refer the matter to the Council to see whether we can get further guidance.
  I only want to say a word on one more subject—Service Departments. I listened with great care to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I have read over and over again what the Committee have said on this point. At the moment, Service Departments are under no statutory obligation to hold inquiries at all, but there are extra-statutory arrangements under which objections by local authorities may be heard. The Committee recommended that:
  "save in time of emergency or threat of emergency the Service Departments should be required to adopt the same acquisition procedure as … other Government Departments"—
  that is, the procedure of public notice and public inquiry. Her Majesty's Government are unable to go all the way with the proposals of the Committee. Speed is vital in Service cases. I do not want to mention specific weapons, but noble Lords can well realise that the installation of new weapons is a matter which requires speed; and in this work, in a world of new and changing weapons, it is not really practicable to wait—I use the Committee's phrase—" for an emergency: that is, for war or a threat of
  590
  emergency. We do not live in an age in which these are the really relevant matters.
  I have gone over this aspect with my Service colleagues, and the difficulty I have found is to lay down, where real security is likely to arise and where it is likely not to exist. So the best course I could see was, first of all, to give private interests and not merely local authorities and community associations—any private interest—a statutory right to object and to be heard by an independent person. Here, in view of the fact that there cannot be the same openness (for the reason which I have given), I would make this person one appointed by me and of judicial standing and qualifications, so that people would know that, although in many cases it might be impossible to have a public inquiry, there would be an inquiry before a person of proper judicial stature and abilities. I would appoint that person in England and my friend the Secretary of State would appoint in Scotland. I want the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to know that I have in mind that there will be many cases where no security question at all arises. If Chelsea Barracks is to be extended there will be no need for security arrangements; and in such a case it will be possible to have a public inquiry and to follow the usual procedure. By getting independence in qualifications I want to substitute something for that which at the moment I fear I cannot give. T wish to put that to the noble Lord.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will affected people be told?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The affected people will be notified?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. certainly. I said that I must make clear that it is important, in the first group of cases, to undertake publication of the inspector's report. But even, in these cases the inspector's communications will be communicated to the parties, unless there are special security objections: and, of course, that will be provided for in the Act: it will be given statutory right.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: How will they be informed of the substance of what is objected about?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Supposing there is some proposed appendage to a guided-missile site, they will be told that is wanted for a matter connected with the Services, and that they will be heard by Mr. So-and-So, Q.C., at a certain time. At least, that is the way I see it. I hope the noble Lord will not hold me to detail. I have tried to envisage matters as I have gone along. I apologise that it always seems to be my f ate to speak to your Lordships at great length, and your Lordships are very kind and patient with me. My only excuse is that I try very hard to answer all the points that are raised in the debate. Your Lordships will appreciate that inevitably in the last four months I have spent much time on every proposal in this great Report. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I conclude with one more word on the underlying principles.
  My Lords, it is my faith that the State exists for man and the benefit of its citizens. I recognise that in this country public needs must on occasion surmount private rights in order to provide houses, schools, hospitals, nuclear power stations, weapon sites or "what have you." If, however, the true value of human individuality is to be maintained, then the individual must be given a fair and open opportunity of putting his objection and his case; and, further, we must put into this procedure all that we have learned in the way of justice and protection for private citizens from the great social service of the Common Law, which is followed by a third of the population of the world. If, when we have translated
  592
  into reality the spirit of the Franks Report, we can then feel that we have done something to harmonise the position of the State and the individual on the threshold of this new, complicated scientific age, our time will not have been spent in vain.
  6.43 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think that the House will agree that this Motion would have justified itself if it had done no more than give an opportunity to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to address us for the first time. Nevertheless, I hope that it has done more. I think that it has done, as it was designed to do, this much more: it has given your Lordships an opportunity, in response to the open invitation from Her Majesty's Government, to contribute your suggestions on this very important subject, and it has given to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack the opportunity to make, as usual, a careful, courteous and comprehensive reply to the debate. My Lords, I was almost tempted, if only for the sake of alliteration, to add to these epithets the word "convincing"; but perhaps I will substitute "cogent", because, although I realise the force of many of his observations, I am not going to admit myself entirely satisfied. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him and to the House, and I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.