Sitting of 9 December 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sidney Dye, esquire, Member for Norfolk, South-West, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Income Tax (Schedule A)
    Mr. Pageasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will terminate the inequality in tax burden between the owner-occupier of a residence elevated upon wheels and the owner-occupier of a residence the foundations of which are immobile.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Page: Is not it another of the anomalies under Schedule A tax that the owner-occupier of, for example, a residence costing £500 should have to pay tax and the owner-occupier of, for example, a caravan costing perhaps £1,000 should get off scot-free? Will my right hon. Friend look into this or possibly do away with Schedule A tax altogether?
    Mr. Amory: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I will certainly look into this, as I will into any other point which is relevant to this Question that he cares to raise with me.
    Mr. Barterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are taken by the Inland Revenue authorities to draw the attention of the taxpayer to his right,
    180
    in certain circumstances, to claim relief from Income Tax, Schedule A, on the sums expended on maintenance of his property, fire insurance and management where those exceed the statutory repairs allowance.
    Mr. Amory: Attention is drawn to this relief in the notes accompanying demands and receipts for Schedule A tax, Income Tax return forms and Pay-As-You-Earn coding notices.
    Mr. Barter: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it appears that between one-tenth and one-twelfth only of owner-occupiers make any claim in this connection? Will he bear in mind the need to draw attention to the entitlement to make this claim so that the other owner-occupiers, who are paying about £34 million a year in tax, may have an opportunity to secure some relief?
    Mr. Amory: There is no guarantee that they would secure any relief, because that would depend on the circumstances. I think that the notices which are included are very adequate to the purpose.
    Mr. Pageasked the Chancellor of Exchequer upon what principle maintenance claims against Schedule A Income Tax liability may include wall covering, for example, repapering, but not floor covering, for example, renewal of linoleum, liquid or otherwise.
    Mr. Amory: I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to claims made by owner-occupiers. The principle is that the expenses which are admissible are those which are incurred by the owner-occupier as owner and not those which he incurs as occupier. The detailed application of this rule in cases of dispute is a matter for the General Commissioners of Income Tax.
    Mr. Page: Does not this rule show the out-of-date nature of Schedule A tax altogether? Is not it a fact that in modern dwellings floor coverings are just as usual and as common as wall coverings? Will my right hon. Friend look at the rule again in present circumstances?
    Mr. Amory: I do not think that is necessary. It is just a question of what would normally be a landlord's

    181
    responsibility and what would normally be a tenant's responsibility, and that is precisely the line we try to draw.
    Mr. Pageasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will permit the allowance in maintenance claims against Schedule A Income Tax liability of a reasonable sum for labour when the owner-occupier himself carries out the repair work.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir; only actual expenditure can be allowed.
    Mr. Page: Is not this grossly unfair to the person who tries to save money by doing his own work in the house? Does not it benefit the person who has the money and can afford to pay for it to be done?
    Mr. Amory: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The point here is what the man actually has to pay for.
    Mr. Jay: If the income itself is taken in real terms as liable to taxation, surely the maintenance in real terms might be included also?

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that anticipation of substantial Purchase Tax reductions, also of further measures of simplification of the tax, to be included in his April, 1959, Budget, will cause prospective buyers of many items, notably motor cars and television and radio sets, taxed at 60 per cent., to postpone purchases until after Tuesday, 15th April, 1959; and, in view of trade dislocation, withholding of orders by the distributive trade to factories, and the consequential danger of increased short-time working and unemployment thereby resulting, whether he will effect all intended Purchase Tax reductions, and no increases, on 1st January, 1959, instead of in his April, 1959, Budget.
    Mr. Amory: I must refer my hon. Friend once again to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on 18th November.
    Mr. Nabarro: But is not mounting winter unemployment, often wrongly described as seasonal unemployment, in the first quarter of every year, now most largely due to uncertainties in connection with Purchase Tax changes? Is not
    182
    it a fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to avoid these disruptions in industry, made his announcement of Purchase Tax changes early in the new year? Will my right hon. Friend follow that admirable precedent?
    Mr. Amory: I doubt whether uncertainty over Purchase Tax is, as my hon. Friend implies, the main factor or even one of the chief factors in the seasonal unemployment.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the yield of Purchase Tax has increased from £290 million in 1950–51, representing some 7 per cent. of total revenue of approximately £4,000 million, to over £490 million, representing nearly 10 per cent. of total revenue in 1958–59 of approximately £5,000 million; and whether he will now state on what grounds he considers it justifiable to obtain such substantially larger proportion of the revenue by means of Purchase Tax, having regard to the inflationary effects of this increase.
    Mr. Amory: As regards the first part of the Question, my hon. Friend has exaggerated the increase in the Purchase Tax yield as a proportion of total revenue. As regards the second part, I am aware of my hon. Friend's views, but he will not be surprised if I do not agree with him.
    Mr. Nabarro: There is always room for disagreement in these matters. Would not my right hon. Friend concede the accuracy of the fact that last year he collected £494 million in Purchase Tax, that this year he Budgeted for £491 million in Purchase Tax, and that, pro rata, for the first seven months of this year, converted to the full current year, he will actually gather in £520 million in Purchase Tax, or £2 million per working day out of the wage earners' pay packets? Surely he ought to do something about that.
    Mr. Amory: I limited myself to pointing out the inaccuracy in the figures which my hon. Friend included in his Question, and I must urge him, if he wishes to score as many goals as I know he would like to do in the next few months, to concentrate on accuracy.
    Mr. Jay: Is not the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) this time quite accurate in saying that the present Government are raising in Purchase Tax £200 million more than the Labour Government and a total tax revenue of £1,000 million more?
    Mr. Amory: I am only expressing the hope that my hon. Friend will always be accurate.
    Mr. Nabarro: May I ask a further supplementary question, Sir? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is a very short one. Would my right hon. Friend refer to the Report of O.E.E.C., published 48 hours ago, urgently stressing the need for further Purchase Tax reduction?
    Mr. Amory: I am aware of the Report to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason valve replacements for radio sets and cathode ray tubes for television sets are subject to Purchase Tax at 60 per cent., whereas spare parts, for example sparking plugs, for other articles, subject to purchase tax at 60 per cent., for example motor cars, are not so liable; and whether he will correct this anomaly at an early date.
    Mr. Amory: For revenue reasons. Quite different considerations arise in the case of spare parts for vehicles.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am a practical man, Sir. Is not it the fact that a sparking plug makes a motor car go, that a cathode ray tube makes a television set go and that a valve makes a radio set go? As all these are essential spare parts, why should my right hon. Friend be so predatory in taking 60 per cent. Purchase Tax on radio valves or cathode ray tubes and nothing on sparking plugs for motor cars? Surely he should be practical, reasonable and equitable in all these matters?
    Mr. Amory: I think my hon. Friend rather over-simplifies things, as he sometimes does. A sparking plug is not the thing that makes a motor car go, but one of the things that makes a motor car go. As a practical man, I think he will know the difference between a cathode ray tube and a sparking plug, and between a radio set and a motor vehicle.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to us why this practical man last year did not vote with us in the Division Lobby for the reduction of the 60 per cent. Purchase Tax on cathode ray tubes?
    Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend is far too practical a man to vote in the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Philips Price.
    Mr. Woodburn: On the human side of this matter, is the Chancellor aware that both the Purchase Tax—
    Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. Is not it a fact that before the right hon. Gentleman asked his Question, you called the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price)?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, but, before the hon. Member rose to ask Question No. 8, the right hon. Gentleman got up to ask another supplementary question.
    Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but my question will be a very short one. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the Purchase Tax and the high price of cathode ray tubes prevent a very large number of people of humble means from enjoying this very important contribution to modern life?
    Mr. Amory: I will take into consideration, when considering my taxation proposals, the point the right hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to reduce the cost of living, the unemployment in the wool textile and clothing industries, and the recently-created tax anomalies, he will consider removing the Purchase Tax on wool cloth.
    Mr. Amory: I removed the tax on wool cloth in my last Budget. Tax is charged at 5 per cent. on clothing made of wool.
    Mr. Allaun: Is not it grossly anomalous that if a customer buys a suit length and takes it to his tailor, no tax is payable, yet if he buys a suit length from the same tailor—his own tailor—tax is payable, both on the material and on the making-up charge? Is not that a daft idea? Will the Chancellor before

    185
    April consider removing this tax, particularly in view of the heavy unemployment in these industries?
    Mr. Nabarro: That is just the point I was making.
    Mr. Amory: The change was made last year at the request of many organisations representative of the trade in order to reduce anomalies. Again, I will certainly bear in mind the points which the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Would the Chancellor agree that the anomalies created by only half taking off the tax were not introduced at the request of the trade, and that we produced many items of evidence to suggest that it would create more anomalies? Secondly, is he aware that one of his predecessors, the Lord Privy Seal, refused to take the tax off cotton goods until after the date of the 1955 General Election was announced, and said that it would be dishonest to do so? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is going to do anything about this, to do it now, in order to remove uncertainty and unemployment in the trade, and not wait until a pre-election Budget?
    Mr. Amory: I will take into consideration the points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Mr. Nabarro: My Question was non-political, not like the last one.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that the higher rates of Purchase Tax are not limiting the ability of many industries to increase their exports; and if he will review these rates.
    Mr. Amory: I shall be reviewing the whole field of taxation at the appropriate time; my hon. Friend must not expect me to comment on particular aspects now.
    Mr. Gower: Has there not been all along a singular reluctance by the Treasury to admit that a virile, expanding export industry cannot export without a large domestic industry as well?
    Mr. Amory: May I add that there is also a continuing responsibility on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that he raises the requisite amount of revenue?

    British Publications, Middle East and Southern Asia
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the almost complete absence of British books and publications from countries with balance of payment difficulties such as some in the Middle East and Southern Asia, he will consider means by which a limited amount of sterling currency would be available to meet such conditions.
    Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the general statement on the Government Information Services by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 3rd November.
    Mr. Price: Is it a fact that certain countries with balance of payments difficulties are literally without any English books or publications, particularly countries like Turkey and Pakistan? Since this is a very serious matter, cannot the Chancellor do something more than refer me to a Question which was answered some time ago?
    Mr. Amory: I think that Answer was very relevant, but the problem which the hon. Gentleman raises is a serious one, and it is one to which attention is being given. My right hon. Friend pointed out that that precise aspect of the problem, with others, is at present under consideration, and that he will be making an announcement in due course.

    Post-war Credits
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to pay interest at 5 per cent. per annum in respect of post-war credits not repaid after 1st January, 1959.
    Mr. Amory: I regret that I cannot see my way to adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Gower: Is not this a reasonable suggestion, in view of the fact that these forced loans have now subsisted for about 17 years, and would not it be fair to these people who have had to wait so much longer than those who have already been paid?
    Mr. Amory: I will continue to take into consideration my hon. Friend's views.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    187
    whether he will consider authorising the purchase of the right to post-war credits within five years of their maturing by the banks or by other authorised financial institutions.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I could not undertake to introduce an arrangement of this sort.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a rather disappointing Answer for some people? What would be the objection to an arrangement of this nature, bearing in mind that in France, for example, similar debts of individuals are sometimes paid in the form of post-dated bonds?
    Mr. Amory: It would be very difficult to do administratively. Every one of these claims before it is effective has to be checked in detail. It would create more rigidity and make it more difficult for the Government to change the conditions for repayment if we found ourselves able to do so, for example, by advancing the age for repayment.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that £9 million has been paid out in cases of hardship to doctors in advance of their retirement under the National Health Service scheme for compensating doctors for the loss of the right to sell the goodwill of their practices; and if he will adopt similar criteria for judging hardship in order to repay post-war credits in cases where such hardship exists.
    Mr. Amory: I regret that my hon. Friend's suggestion would not provide a satisfactory basis for repayment of postwar credits.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are trying to help him in his difficulty of defining hardship? Would he say in what way the standards adopted by his Department differ from those adopted by the Ministry of Health and by the National Assistance Board?
    Mr. Amory: In the case of doctors the circumstances are very different. It is a question of interpreting hardship in a very much narrower field than in these cases. I think that summarises the difficulties.
    Mr. Fitchasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the expectancy of life of women is
    188
    greater than that of men, whether he will consider paying post-war credits to men at the age of 60 rather than at 65 years.
    Mr. Amory: I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.
    Mr. Fitch: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that the present position is illogical? In view of the fact that men are generous by nature, would not both men and women benefit by reduction of the age of payment?
    Mr. Amory: I certainly subscribe to the attribute that the hon. Gentleman applied to men, but I would remind him that the qualifying ages are not based on expectancy of life.
    Mr. Fitchasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reconsider his decision not to pay Mr. T. Yates, 83, Victoria Street, Newtown, Wigan, his post-war credits.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir. Mr. Yates has not reached the qualifying age, and I have no power to authorise repayment in his case.
    Mr. Fitch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very distressing case, that this man has worked in the mines for 36 years, has contracted lung disease and has been unable to work for the last 11 years? Does not he think this is the sort of case where repayment is due?
    Mr. Amory: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this clearly is a distressing case. The difficulty that all Governments have found is that of drawing the line. There are so many distressing cases that it is difficult to define when a case ceases to be distressing. I have explained how unhappy I am not to be able to meet cases like that. I am once again looking into the position to see whether it is possible to devise any system where lines can be drawn sensibly and satisfactorily, but I am not hopeful.

    Common Market and Free Trade Area
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the prospects of forming a closer economic union with Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, having regard to the circumstance that the first common market tariff cuts and quota enlargements are due to be made on 1st January.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I do not think I could usefully add to my reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) on 18th November.
    Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind that the prospects of agreement on a European Free Trade Area have now receded severely, would not the arrangements suggested in the Question at least partially cover the right hon. Gentleman's nakedness in the conference room?
    Mr. Maudling: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about my nakedness. So far as his Question is concerned, the Government still believe that something like the Free Trade Area is still the best line for Europe.
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what offers have been received from the countries of the European Economic Community to extend voluntarily to the proposed free trade area countries the tariff reductions to be made on 1st January under the Rome Treaty; and what reply Her Majesty's Government gave.
    Mr. Maudling: The Six made known their intentions to the O.E.E.C. yesterday. The matter will be before the O.E.E.C. Council of Ministers when it meets, probably next week.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Paymaster-General aware that distinguished representatives of the Community have been saying privately for some time that an offer was made as long ago as last July to the British Government to extend these cuts on 1st January, and that it was turned down by the British Government? If that is not true, as is believed by many people, will the right hon. Gentleman deny it?
    Mr. Maudling: I am glad to have the opportunity of saying that it is totally untrue, because the only thing that happened in July was that it was suggested by the European Community that the idea of a provisional agreement might be considered, but no proposals were made. At that time it was felt by the Govern-merits concerned that it would be premature to consider a provisional agreement. In fact, when we met last October the question was again raised, and the representatives of the Six still said that it was premature.
    Mr. Jay: If this offer is still open for 1st January, what is Her Majesty's Government's attitude to it?
    Mr. Maudling: I have explained that no such offer has ever been made. A proposal reached the O.E.E.C. yesterday which will be considered, I hope, next week.

    House Purchase (Loans)
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why local authorities are charged a higher rate of interest than building societies for 20-year loans of public money for house purchase.
    Mr. Amory: I would refer the right hon. Member to my reply of 2nd December to the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool. Exchange (Mrs. Braddock).
    Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told me in an Answer on 20th November that, through the Public Works Loan Board, he charges a rate of 5⅞ per cent. for 20 years on a loan for house purchase to local authorities, and that in the White Paper he proposes to charge only 5½ per cent. for the same purpose to building societies? How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that difference?
    Mr. Amory: It is difficult to compare loans which are raised on fixed interest terms and loans where the interest rate is variable. It is difficult to say how this proposed scheme would work out over the years. We do not know the current rates that will be charged under the Public Works Loan Board system, nor the current rates to be charged in respect of building societies.
    Mr. Jay: Does that justify this discrimination? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again and see whether he can get the two rates into line?
    Mr. Amory: We shall be discussing this point later on the Bill.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend hold out reasonable hopes that both rates will come down in the near future?
    Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend knows that the Public Works Loan Board rate is linked with the current rate in the market for local authority borrowing and

    191
    so is dependent upon the current rate in the market.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is the implication of the Chancellor's argument about fixed rates and variable rates that the prospect over the years is of rates even higher than these? Is that what he is looking to?
    Mr. Amory: That is not the inference to be drawn from what I have said.

    Motor Vehicles and Fuel (Taxation)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage increase in the amount of annual revenue provided from motor vehicle and petrol taxation in 1958 compared with 1938.
    Mr. Amory: The answer is 392 per cent.
    Captain Pilkington: Does not my right hon. Friend think that that is an astonishing figure? Does not he think that the motorist should pay rather less in taxation?
    Mr. Amory: The motorist, like everyone else, would like to pay rather less in taxation and, consistent with my requirement to raise the revenue, I would agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, the motorist and everyone else.
    Mr. Prentice: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated yield in the current financial year from licensed vehicle duty and fuel oil duty.
    Mr. Amory: £100 million from motor vehicle duty and £345 million from the hydrocarbon oil duties.
    Mr. Prentice: Would the Chancellor agree that the London Transport Executive is paying something like £5 million a year under these two headings and that is one of the reasons why it finds it necessary to cut bus services in the Greater London area, thereby causing grave concern to the public? In the circumstances, will he have a look at this matter to see whether the tax might be reduced in the next Budget?
    Mr. Amory: I am afraid that without notice I cannot corroborate the accuracy of the figure the hon. Member has given, and I am not sure that I could do so even with notice. Of course, the duties form
    192
    one element in costs, but against that they bring in a large amount of revenue which I should find it difficult to do without.

    Tax Revenue and National Income
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage of taxes compared to national income in 1951 and at the latest date in 1958.
    Mr. Amory: Central Government revenue from taxation amounted to about 34½ per cent. of the national income in 1951 and 29 per cent. in 1957. I regret that comparable figures for 1958 are not yet available.
    Captain Pilkington: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is a very welcome sign of the success of Tory government?
    Mr. Amory: I should be inclined to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Would the Chancellor also agree that the amount of taxation raised by the present Government has increased by 50 per cent. since 1951 and that if the national income had risen as much under the present Government as it did under the Labour Government, the percentage year by year of the national income going into taxation instead of this policy of stagnation would have fallen even more rapidly?
    Mr. Amory: I am not inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

    Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance)
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the insistence, as a condition of a Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee loan, that alternative finance should not be available to a firm, is hampering the effectiveness of the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958; and whether he will relax this condition.
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir; the condition is laid down in the Act and I have no power to relax it. In any case, if capital can be raised on reasonable terms from normal commercial sources, there is no need for loans by the Treasury.
    Mr. Jay: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this has provoked a real difficulty because reputable firms who could get finance elsewhere find that there is no incentive, as a result of the Act, to go to these areas at all now that the building restriction is less effective? Will the right hon. Gentleman think over this problem because, in South Wales for example, it has been a deterrent?
    Mr. Amory: I will consider the point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. Under the Act the Treasury is a lender of last resort and not a lender of first resort.
    Mr. G. Robertsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, have so far been received from Caernarvonshire; and how many have been rejected, accepted, and are still under consideration, respectively.
    Mr. Amory: Three firm and eligible applications have so far been received from Caernarvonshire. All three are now under consideration.
    Mr. Roberts: Does not that information bear out what my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has just said, that this Act does not contain any real incentive to firms to come to areas like North Wales? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in Caernarvonshire is over 9 per cent., and is constantly increasing? Will he at least see that the appropriate committee deals with the utmost speed arid sympathy with all the applications which have been received?
    Mr. Amory: I am sorry to hear the level of unemployment to which the hon. Member has referred. I can only give an assurance that every application made will be looked at as sympathetically and quickly as circumstances permit, but the hon. Member will understand that inquiries always have to be made after an application has been sent in.

    Government Ministries and Civil Servants
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give figures to show the difference at the latest available date in 1958 compared
    194
    with the same date in 1951 of the number of Government Ministries and the number of civil servants, respectively.
    Mr. Amory: There are 23 Government Ministries now; there were 27 in 1951. On the 1st October, 1958, there were 632,316 non-industrial civil servants; on the 1st October, 1951, there were 685,447.
    Captain Pilkington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these figures are another striking example of Conservative success?
    Mr. Amory: I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how much more rapidly we reduced the number of civil servants in the years after the war—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, and the figures are on the record. If the argument is that we do not want people in allegedly un-productive occupations, would the Chancellor point out to his hon. and gallant Friend that this year alone the number of miscellaneous and other workers in non-productive occupations is increasing by 40,000?
    Mr. Amory: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that to run down an economy from a war-time to a peace-time administration is not the same as running it down over seven years of peace-time.

    Building Societies
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in laying down the proportion of total assets held as free reserves by building societies in order to qualify for trusteeship status, he selected 1½ per cent. as the initial and 2½ per cent. as the ultimate minimum.
    Mr. Amory: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to him on Tuesday, 2nd December, 1958.
    Mr. Macmillan: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it will be extremely difficult for building societies to raise their reserve ratio from 1½ per cent, to 2½ per cent. without either postponing a reduction in mortgage rates or even raising mortgage rates, or at least retarding their rate of growth?
    Mr. Amory: I think the details can best be debated when we come to the Bill.

    Museums and Galleries (Purchase Grants)
    Dr. Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent under its revised constitution the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries will be required to advise on the allocation of grants to museums and galleries; and what extension of the original terms of reference has taken place or is contemplated.
    Mr. Amory: It will be open to the Standing Commission in future, as it has been in the past under its terms of reference, to advise on the purchase grants of the national museums and galleries. Its terms of reference are wide. No extension has taken place and I do not think any is called for at present.
    Dr. Stross: With terms of reference as wide as these, is the Chancellor satisfied that the composition of the Standing Commission is such that there is enough special knowledge available of what is called the international art market?
    Mr. Amory: I think so. I think the composition of the Standing Commission is very appropriate for the function it performs. I am very anxious that the Commission should have full scope for advising me on the important issues involved.
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet reached any conclusion about the future level of purchase grants to the national museums and art galleries.
    Mr. Amory: Not yet, Sir.
    Mr. Robinson: May I take it that the Chancellor is now seized of the urgent necessity for a substantial increase in the grants and that all he is now considering is the amount of the increase? When may we expect a reply?
    Mr. Amory: Answering the first part of the supplementary question, I am seized of the importance of this question and the wide interest which is taken in it. The hon. Member himself formed a part of the delegation which discussed this matter with me the other day and did his best to ensure that I was seized of the importance of it. In answer to the second part of his supplementary question I can only say, "As soon as feasible".

    British Aluminium Company
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be in a position to make a further statement on the applications now before him relating to the British Aluminium Company.
    Mr. Amory: I have no statement to make at present.

    Hire Purchase
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has formed of the inflationary effects of the recent removal of restrictions on hire purchase.
    Mr. Amory: I cannot put a precise figure on the increase in expenditure, but I have no reason to think that it will be so great as to produce any general excess of demand or generate an inflation in prices.
    Mr. Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power was speaking with the Chancellor's authority or not when he said that if these present hire-purchase derestrictions continue they will lead to raging inflation? Is that the view of the Government and, if so, what are the Government going to do about it?
    Mr. Amory: My view, as I have clearly expressed it, is that relaxations on hire purchase will prove useful and helpful in prevailing circumstances and will provide a useful stimulation which will not involve any excessive demand on the economy.
    Mr. Wilson: While thanking the Chancellor for the repudiation of the Parliamentary Secretary—as such we must take it—inay I ask if he will make clear to his hon. Friend, when he has settled his other row with him about the statement he made the other day, that on hire-purchase derestriction the Chancellor thinks his action was right?
    Mr. Amory: I am clearly satisfied that my action was right and I shall continue to account to the House for the working out of these policies. I am quite satisfied in the present circumstances that this step was useful, that it will prove helpful in providing employment in certain sectors of the economy where there was surplus capacity and that it will not involve an excessive demand.

    Income Tax
    Mr. McKayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what total amount he estimates would accrue to the Treasury by increasing the Income Tax by 6d. at the standard rate and 3d. at the reduced rates; and what amount would accrue from each of these increases.
    Mr. Amory: About £140 million, of which about £90 million is attributable to 6d. on the standard rate and about £50 million to 3d. on each of the reduced rates.
    Mr. McKay: Instead of taking 6d. off Income Tax in April, would the Chancellor consider allocating some money as a supplement to the National Insurance Fund so that higher pensions may be paid?
    Mr. Amory: I shall take note of what the hon. Member has suggested.
    Mr. McKayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the tax relief at present under the National Insurance Act for a married man with one child under 12 years with £7 per week, with £13 per week, and with £18 per week, respectively.
    Mr. Amory: The Income Tax relief to a married man with one child under 11 years is nil. 11d. and 1s. 8d. a week, respectively.

    Pension Contributions (Tax Relief)
    Mr. McKayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated total tax relief to all insured persons in a full year under the new pension scheme arising from their contributions towards pensions in the combined scheme, including all those with incomes above £15 a week.
    Mr. Amory: I regret this information is not available.

    Watches (Ilbert Collection)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the approaches that have been made to him, what steps he has taken to secure preservation for the nation of the Ilbert collection of watches.
    Mr. Amory: The British Museum Trustees recently applied for special assistance for several purchases to which they attach importance, including the
    198
    Ilbert watches. I have agreed to ask Parliament to approve a special grant of £50,000 towards these purchases. An issue from the Civil Contingencies Fund may be necessary and a Supplementary Estimate will be laid before the House in due course. It is for the trustees to decide how they will allocate the special grant between the purchases they wish to make.
    Mr. Deedes: While acknowledging what my right hon. Friend has done in this matter, may I ask if he will bear in mind that something like £65,000 out of the total cost of £88,000 for this collection has been found through private sources, which is an exceptionally high total? Will he bear in mind the immense store which the industry, now making half of our watches and exporting about £2 million worth, sets by this collection? Will he make sure that we do not lose the collection if we can possibly avoid that?
    Mr. Amory: The grant I have mentioned was a very substantial part of the grant for which I was asked. I should like to pay tribute to the generous help which is being provided to the trustees from private sources for this object. The actual allocation of the grant among the various bodies, as my hon. Friend agrees is a matter for the trustees.

    Public Works Loan Board
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Association of Municipal Corporations in favour of lower rates of interest for loans to local authorities from the Public Works Loan Board; and the terms of his reply.
    Mr. Amory: I have not received any such representations from this Association.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at its September meeting the General Purposes Committee of the A.M.C. expressed the view that the Public Works Loan Board ought to give a lead to the money market by trying to bring the rates of interest down? In view of the need to encourage local authorities in constructive capital spending in a time of unemployment, should not he take this advice and bring down the Public Works Loan Board rates of interest?
    Mr. Amory: As I have said, I have not received any representations to that effect from the body to which the hon. Member has referred.

    Northumberland and Durham Cycle Traders' Association
    Mr. Shortasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the hon. Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne had to wait until 4th December for a reply to his letter dated 13th November on behalf of the Northumberland and Durham Cycle Traders' Association.
    Mr. Amory: I fear that the large number of letters which my Treasury colleagues and I receive sometimes imposes a little delay, but I do not think the delay in this case was unreasonable.
    Mr. Short: Does the Chancellor realise that if it takes as long as this to get an answer to a letter of this kind, that leads hon. Members to expect a more encouraging reply than the one received? Does not he think it a bit thick to have to wait for three weeks to be told that he will bear the matter in mind?
    Mr. Amery: On many matters I cannot be as forthcoming as I should like to be.

    Arts Council (Grants for Opera)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now concluded his discussions with representatives of the Arts Council and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden; and whether he will make a statement on future grants for opera.
    Mr. Amory: The amount devoted to opera from the Arts Council grant is a matter for the Arts Council and not for me. As to the level of the Arts Council grant for 1959–60, I must ask the hon. Member to await the Estimates.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government spokesman in another place on 27th November stated definitely that discussions are going on at this moment about the position of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden? At the same time as London opera is being discussed with representatives of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, will not he discuss the position of the Carl Rosa Company with a view to getting more opera in the Provinces?
    Mr. Amory: I think that the meeting to which the hon. Member refers was a meeting between the Covent Garden authorities and the Arts Council, at which two representatives of the Treasury were present as assessors.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only on this side of the House but I am sure in all parts of the House and all parts of the country that there is a very strong desire that more should be spent on the arts? It is not good enough to say that we must wait for the Estimates, because we cannot amend the Estimates. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need for doing what my hon. Friend said both in London and in the Provinces and for spreading out more widely in relation to provision for the arts generally?
    Mr. Amory: I am certainly having a wealth of representations made to me on this subject, not all of them exactly in line with one another, but all having one common characteristic—in other words, involving higher expenditure.

    American Gramophone Records (Matrices)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the dollar expenditure incurred in the import of matrices of American recorded music; what royalties are paid in dollars on records made from them and sold in the United Kingdom; and the dollar payment for performing fees when the records are broadcast.
    Mr. Amory: Imports from America of matrices for the reproduction of gramophone records for the last twelve months were of the order of £18,800. I regret that no separate figures are available for royalties or performing fees paid in respect of their use.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Chancellor aware that the B.B.C. uses records made from these matrices to give over 80 per cent. American music in its recorded programmes? Is he aware that this causes a grave loss of dollars to us and also gives no encouragement to British composers and song writers? Could he take some steps to increase the use of British artists?
    Mr. Amory: I am aware that the payment of royalties and rights involves a considerable sum of money in total, but

    201
    I am not at present of the opinion that there is anything unfair or unreasonable in the present arrangements.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the present level of the gold and dollar reserve and to the imminence of a seasonally favourable period for sterling, he will expedite measures to lower interest rates in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Amory: As regards short-term rates of interest, the hon. Member will have observed that Bank Rate has been reduced by 3 per cent. in the last nine months. Future policy in this field will remain flexible. As regards long-term rates, I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member on 2nd December.
    Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that by previous standards a 4 per cent. Bank Rate is a high rate of interest and that nobody will believe that he wishes to reduce unemployment while that high rate of interest continues?
    Mr. Amory: All I can assure the hon. Member is that policy will continue to he adjusted to the needs of the changing situation. As for opinions on the changing of rates, I leave it to the hon. Member to decide that matter for himself.

    European Free Trade Area
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government intend to publish a White Paper on the European Free Trade Area negotiations.
    Mr. Maudling: As my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, told the House on 4th December, I have been considering this matter. I feel, however, that it would be difficult to publish a full and satisfactory White Paper at the present moment.
    Mr. Cronin: As the inimical clauses of the Rome Treaty are due to take effect in a few weeks' time, does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the need for a White Paper is urgent?
    Mr. Maudling: I understand the point, but the trouble is that the negotiations and the documents are by mutual understanding confidential, and the Government could not make a unilateral move
    202
    to publish them. I will try to see whether I can do something about this.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the main reason we were willing to acquiesce in postponing a debate on this subject was that we understood that it would be possible to issue a White Paper after 1st January but very difficult to issue one before that? Will he give an undertaking that we shall have a White Paper telling the House and the country as much as he can tell the House and the country in good time for the debate which we hope and intend to have after Christmas?
    Mr. Maudling: I share the right hon. Gentleman's desire to give the House the greatest information on this matter, but there is the difficulty of the documents concerned being confidential by international agreement. I will do my best in the near future to try to ensure that the maximum amount is made public.
    Mr. Wilson: If I send the right hon. Gentleman one of these confidential documents from the Continent which are floating about in this country, showing that he has misled the House this afternoon in the statement about the offer made by the Six, will he publish that in a White Paper?
    Mr. Maudling: I should he grateful to receive any document, but I should be extremely surprised if any document which the right hon. Gentleman sent me made the point which he thinks he could make.
    Mr. Woodburn: Since up to now so much has been given to the public to discourage any hope of a settlement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any hopes of this matter being settled at the meeting next week?
    Mr. Maudling: These things can be settled if there is a general will to succeed in a settlement, but not otherwise.

    Annuities (Transfer to Canada)
    Mr. Mathewasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to allow the transfer of annuities owned by a constituent of the hon. Member for Honiton, of which particulars have been

    203
    supplied to him, to the Dominion of Canada so that he and his wife may now rejoin their family in Canada.
    Mr. Amory: I am informed that my hon. Friend's constituent has already received from the Exchange Control authorities a full explanation of the facilities available to him whereby he could transfer to Canada the proceeds of his annuities.

  POTATOES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. V. Yatesasked the Prime Minister if the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Saturday, 29th November, at Dunsford, Devon, regarding the high price of potatoes, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): My right hon. Friend tells me that he did not say, as reported, that the price of potatoes is higher than it ought to be; but rather that due to the weather it was higher than he would like to see it.
  Mr. Yates: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the Chancellor was reported to have said, "Will you ladies stop feeding your families potatoes until I tell you to start again?"? Does this mean that when the prices of essential food are higher than the Government would like them to be, it is now the Government's policy to request British housewives to stop feeding their children with essential food?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member must not read too much into a lighthearted aside at an informal gathering
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is not this simply a case of the gentleman in Whitehall knowing best? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it was with his authority that the Scottish Education Department sent out a circular in similar terms asking local authorities, in view of the high cost of potatoes and of meat, to cut down the supply of potatoes and meat to school children?
  The Prime Minister: I think that this Question arose from one of those occasions at which my right hon. Friend speaks. It is perfectly clear that what he was deploring was something over which
  204
  we have no control—the fact that owing to the bad summer and the bad weather there has been a bad potato crop.
  Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the recognition by the Conservative Party, eleven years afterwards, that, as in 1947, at the time of the Gravesend by-election, bad weather can affect the supply of potatoes?
  The Prime Minister: It certainly can, but it is undoubtedly the fact that the general situation about the cost of living—although there are always one or two items which may upset it—is that it has been remarkably steady for the last twelve months.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there is no question of going back to 1947 and telling the people to eat snoek again?
  Mr. Yates: On a point of order. The Question which I put to the Prime Minister does not concern these points. It concerns a Minister asking people not to feed their families.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point for me.
  The Prime Minister: I can point out that at any rate the great shortages of those days are over and that freedom has paid hand over fist. Although I find it difficult to follow all the policy statements, I understand that it is not the intention of the Labour Party to try to restore rationing if they win the next election.

  SUEZ OPERATIONS
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint an official historian of the Suez war.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is renewed interest in Suez as a result of the mean and cowardly attack by the Foreign Office spokesman on Mr. Randolph Churchill on the ground that his history is inaccurate? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a general opinion in this country that Mr. Randolph Churchill, along with Lord Hailsham, is one of the most thoughtful members of the Conservative Party, and

  205
  does not he think that an objective account of Suez would give the public the information which they are anxious to have?
  The Prime Minister: I always do my best to try to anticipate what are likely to be the supplementary questions upon which are based the apparently rather simple Questions that the hon. Gentleman puts down. He asks whether I would appoint an official historian. In the first place, of course, the military operations, strategy and tactics have been dealt with by the dispatches of the officer in command, General Keightley—published, I think, in 1957. In the second place, I would have thought that, with the hon. Gentleman's temperament and general political position, he would always have preferred a freelance to an official approach.
  Mr. StracheyWhile fully understanding the Prime Minister's reluctance to appoint an official historian, may I ask whether he would agree that all the said historian would be likely to discover would be that the Government adopted in these matters a wrong policy, and mounted a wrong military operation directed on the wrong objectives, which they then failed to take?
  The Prime Minister: All this matter was discussed after the publication of General Keightley's dispatches and, I think. remains on the record of the House. Those dispatches are there to be read.
  Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has twice referred to General Keightley's dispatches, but the House has never had an opportunity, due to the failure of both Front Benches, to debate those dispatches—[Interruption.] That is only a preface to the point of order. In view of the importance of the subject, and the fact that the Prime Minister has already twice referred to them, would you be kind enough, Mr. Speaker, on the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess, to give the House and opportunity to debate these dispatches?
  Mr. Speaker: There is no application for that, as far as I know.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister, in view of the damage to this country's military reputation caused by allegations of the unpreparedness of the
  206
  Armed Forces made against members of Her Majesty's Government in connection with the Suez War, and of which notice has officially been taken, if he will now propose the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of that war.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Prime Minister for that Answer, may I ask if he is aware that there is an impression in the country that he is regarded as one of the very guilty men of the Suez affair—[Interruption.]—and that if such a Select Committee were appointed, it would give him an opportunity of clearing his reputation?
  Mr. Wigg: Impossible.
  The Prime Minister: Matters were discussed, as I say, after General Keightley's dispatches were published, and, of course, I am sorry if the Opposition Front Bench did not ask for further opportunities for debate.
  Mr. Gaitskell: While understanding the Prime Minister's reluctance to have an inquiry into matters in which he was so very closely involved himself, may I ask him how it was that the Foreign Office spokesman said that there were inaccuracies in Mr. Churchill's articles, since most of us regard them as a very clear statement of what we already knew to be the case?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that these articles are serialised extracts from a biography of Sir Anthony Eden. The intention of the Government spokesman was not to criticise the author, but to make it plain that, as this was a biography written without consultation with its subject and without access to official records, it could not be expected to give an authentic or fully accurate account. Beyond that, I am not prepared to go.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Office spokesman said that there were inaccuracies in Mr. Churchill's statement? I am asking the Prime Minister what those inaccuracies were.
  The Prime Minister: I would not be prepared to go beyond what I have just said. [Interruption.] If I were to do

  207
  that, I would be making just that detailed comment on the book that the spokesman refused to do.
  Dame Florence Horsbrugh: If it is the case, as the Opposition have said they consider it to be, that my right hon. Friend was so closely attached to the scheme of the Suez expedition, does he realise that this is one of the reasons why he is so popular now in the country?
  Mr. Bevan: Would not it be a good idea for the Prime Minister to consolidate his popularity by having an inquiry now? Is he aware that there was some reluctance to press for an inquiry at the time because of the illness of one of the principals concerned? As that seems not now to be the case, ought not there to be a very full Select Committee inquiry into one of the most extraordinary incidents of the last 100 years?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. All these matters were fully discussed at the time in the House of Commons. I recognise that there were divisions of opinion in the House, and outside it, and when the time comes I am willing to put my record, with that of the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—to the test of the popular vote.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is there any reason whatever why that time should not be now?
  The Prime Minister: We fully discussed all these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As I say, when the time comes, be it soon—[Interruption.]—or a little more delayed, I am sure that the country will reach its own judgment.
  Mr. Bevan: In view of the fact that Foreign Office spokesmen have now seen fit to state that certain published statements are inaccurate, there is now a great deal of confusion in the public mind as to what the real facts are. Therefore, would not it be desirable to clear them up by having this inquiry? Why is the Prime Minister so coy about it? Is he afraid of what might be revealed about himself?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, and I shall welcome, when the time comes—[Interruption.]—it may be sooner than hon. Members think—the opportunity to put these matters to the inquest of the nation.
  Mr. Gower: Is not it a fact that neither an official history nor an inquiry would appear to be needed in relation to one aspect of this matter—the unfortunate behaviour of Her Majesty's Opposition at that time of national difficulty and emergency?
  Mr. Shinwell: Leaving aside this proposed inquiry by a Select Committee, does not the Prime Minister feel that, in view of the somewhat serious allegations made by Mr. Randolph Churchill about matters that were not debated in this House at the time of the Suez crisis, nor have been since, it is desirable that the Government should make a considered reply?
  The Prime Minister: So far as I have been able to see, all the matters raised in this book, or in these articles, were, in fact, discussed fully in the House.
  Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister say in what circumstances he will consider that the time has come to make some further inquiry into these matters, and to publish the findings?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman always asks a fair question, and I will try to answer it as best I can. I think that it is asked more seriously, perhaps, than have been some other questions. I said that I recognise that there are serious divisions of opinion in the whole matter both inside and outside the House. I do not think that these will be removed by Select Committees or White Papers. They must be left to the judgment of history and of the electorate.
  Mr. W. Yates: Is the Prime Minister aware that the majority of people in this country are far more interested in the future policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Middle East and the Far East as contained in the Gracious Speech? Is this not the aspect about which they are much more interested, rather than what happened at Suez?
  The Prime Minister: I agree. There is a very large number of difficult problems confronting us—we debated some of them the other day—in Europe, in the Middle East and in the Far East. I agree that we would do best, perhaps, to concentrate upon those. Nevertheless, I can only repeat that I am slightly surprised that the particular incident of certain publications should have stimulated the

  209
  Leader of the Opposition to do what he has not thought fit to do in the last two years.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Randolph Churchill alleges quite specifically that there was collusion between both the French and Israeli Governments and also between the British Government and the French Government, which has hitherto been denied by Sir Anthony Eden? Does not he appreciate that this matter cannot be cleared up except after a full inquiry by a Select Committee? Will he, therefore, please reconsider his decision so that the facts can be laid bare?
  The Prime Minister: There was no statement made which was not made at the time and debated at the time and rebutted at the time.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Miss Burton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your help and guidance? My request arises out of Question No. 60 on the Order Paper today. I put this Question down four weeks ago to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, as he did not wish to answer it, it was transferred to the Minister of
210
Housing and Local Government, and was bottom but one in the list.
I know that I cannot ask you, Sir, about which Minister shall answer Questions, but the point I wish to put to you in asking for your guidance is this. Does it not seem to you that, when a Question comes from a back bencher relating to Exchequer grants on matters of policy arising out of the Queen's Speech, it should properly be referred to the Chancellor? The second point on which I should like your help is this. As this is an urgent matter, because women are being refused mortgages each week on grounds of sex alone, would you allow the Minister of Housing and Local Government to answer the Question today? It is quite intolerable that such Questions should be delayed for five or six weeks because the Minister does not wish to answer. We have only you to appeal to, Sir, and I should be grateful for your help.
Mr. Speaker: As I have said, I have no authority whatever over the transfer of Questions from one Department to another. The best advice I can give the hon. Lady is to say that she will, no doubt, receive a written reply to her Question and, if it is not satisfactory, she can return to the matter on another occasion.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SCOTLAND (GRANTS)
3.33 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move,
That the General Grant (Scotland) Order, 1958, dated 20th November, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.
The General Grant (Scotland) Order, 1958, and the accompanying Report, are the latest stage in a process which started with the announcement which was made in Parliament, on 12th February, 1957, indicating the outcome of our review of local government finance. This statement was later embodied in the White Paper, Cmnd. 208, published in July, 1957. The proposals in the White Paper were given effect in the Local Government Act, passed in the summer of this year, and the Act, in turn, required the Secretary of State to make the General Grant Order and lay it, along with a Report, before the House.
The Order itself is a straightforward document. It sets out the result of our calculations arrived at in consultation with the local authority associations. The Report explains how we have done the sums. Before developing this in more detail, I think it is worth while attempting to set the Order and the Report in their proper perspective.
In the original statement, Ministers said that the Government had three proposals: to enable local authorities to raise more of their revenue from their own resources by rerating industry to 50 per cent.; to review the relationship between the central Departments and the local authorities; and to reform the system of Exchequer grants by introducing the general grant.
As the House is aware, the 1958 Act rerated industry; and allowance is made for this in the General Grant Order. The Act also contained relaxations of the controls to which local authorities had previously been subject, and further relaxations are included in the Town and Country Planning Bill now before the House, which removes most of the restrictions on local authorities' land transactions. With the laying of the General Grant Order, we can fairly claim that we are fulfilling our promise to give local
212
authorities increased financial independence and more freedom to manage their own affairs.
To come now to the Order itself, Section 2 (1) of the 1958 Act sets out in explicit terms the various factors which the Secretary of State has to take into account when fixing the totals of the general grant. These factors are also reproduced in paragraph 3 of the Report. I should like to explain now the procedure which has been followed and how this procedure fully complied with the statutory requirements.
A few months ago, we asked local authorities to let us have figures showing the latest available information about the current rate of expenditure on the relevant services, together with estimates of that expenditure for the two years covered by the Order. These figures were scrutinised by my Departments, and some adjustments were made in the estimates for the years 1959–60 and 1960–61. These adjustments took account of future variations in the level of prices, costs and remuneration, so far as my departments can forsee them, of any probable fluctuation in the demand for the services, and of the need for developing these services, having regard to the extent to which the country can afford such development. In other words, the exact procedure laid down in Section 2 of the Act has been carried out.
The results of our calculations were circulated to the local authority associations, whom we are required to consult under Section 1 (5) of the Act. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of State met the associations' representatives on 14th November and discussed the calculations with them in considerable detail. I should emphasise that the differences between the local authorities' own estimates of relevant expenditure and the figures proposed by the Departments were very slight and were, in fact, marginal when compared with the total figure. We made clear in detail what adjustments we had suggested and the reasons for them, and these suggestions and any other points raised by the local authorities were the subject of detailed discussion round the table item by item.
In the outcome, as explained in paragraph 5 of the report, certain of the figures were modified to take account of

213
the further points made by the associations. The final result is set out in the table in paragraph 5. These figures, I should inform the House, are accepted by the local authority associations as the best estimates which can be made at present of their likely relevant expenditure in the two years in question.
Perhaps I should say, at this stage, that I know that the local authority associations were originally of the view that they had not been given enough time to consider the Government's proposals, and they thought that further meetings would have been desirable. It is, of course, true that we never have as much time as we want to do complicated sums of this kind. But the House will want to know that, at the end of our meeting with the local authority associations, there was only one figure in dispute, and this has since been appreciably modified to take account of their views.
I can give the details of that figure if hon. Gentlemen want it. The figure in question related to the amount included in relevant expenditure for loan charges on educational building. If I may amplify it, since it was the only one in dispute, the local authorities' estimates had not been accepted by the Department at the outset. Further discussion, however, did reveal that the authorities' estimates for 1959–60 were based on firm commitments for loans in respect of work which had already been started, and the local authorities' estimates were, therefore, accepted. For 1960–61 a revised figure was proposed by the Department after detailed discussion which has since been accepted by the local authority associations. I hope that that gives the information.
I must make clear once again that the general grant is not merely the sum of the estimated specific grants that it replaces. If it were there would be no purpose in introducing the general grant. Since this is the first general grant, however, we thought it only right to take full account of the detailed expenditure which local authorities expected to incur on the relevant services. This was our starting point. We then had to decide what assistance we should give towards the cost of these services. This obviously must be a matter of judgment, and in our view the right course was to accept the local
214
authorities' estimates, adjusted and agreed after discussion, and to provide Government assistance towards this expenditure on broadly the same scale as obtains at present. The adjusted estimates make a fair provision for such future increases in costs as can be foreseen at present, and also make allowance for reasonable, foreseeable development.
It will be observed, for example, that the total estimated relevant expenditure for 1959–60, which is over £80 million compares with an actual net expenditure of just over £69 million in 1957–58 and estimated expenditure of £75 million in 1958–59.
Adjustments have also been made on this occasion to take account of certain other effects of the 1958 Act, namely, the discontinuance of certain minor grants, the effect of the additional income which local authorities will receive from rerating and the effect on the Exchequer equalisation grant. These are described in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the Report and their net effect is to increase the general grant for the first year by £465,000. The final figure is, therefore, £50·125 million for 1959–60 and £52·075 million for 1960–61.
From 16th May, 1959, the local authorities themselves will decide how to spend this money. The Government have every confidence that they will use wisely the grant they will receive when the total figure is apportioned by means of the formula set out in the Second Schedule to the Act. The actual amount which each individual authority will receive will be notified as early as possible in the New Year. I need not remind the House, however, that under the transitional arrangements provided for under Section 18 of the Act, no authority will lose anything in the first year of the grant's operation, and only 10 per cent. of any loss in the second year. The gains and losses will be calculated in accordance with the General Grant (Transitional Adjustments) Regulations, which have also been laid before the House. There will, however, be a net gain of approximately £750,000 to Scottish local authorities as a whole from the first year onwards.
While it will be for the local authorities to decide how to spend the grant, the House will expect to have some indication of the kind of development which we hope to see during the next two years

215
and of the provision which we have made for it in our calculations. Taking the main services covered by the grant in order, the details are as follows.
In education, the main developments in the period will be the provision of new schools; an increase in the number of teachers; the development of secondary education; improved facilities for higher education; further provision for full-time and day-release courses in further education; and for the development of the youth service.
Educational building will be maintained at a high-level and the value of work to be started during the first general grant period, 1959–61, is expected to be about £30 million. On the basis of the forecasts of the Committee on the Supply of Teachers, modified by later information, we expect that the number of certificated teachers will increase by more than 1,000 during the period. Allowance has been made in the authorities' estimates for the salaries of these additional teachers and for the recent increase in teachers' salaries.
Provision has also been made for the increase in the number of pupils in the secondary schools in consequence of the effect of the "bulge" on the secondary school population and of the increasing number of pupils expected to remain at school after the age of 15. The main task in this direction during the period will be to maintain and improve standards for these pupils.
The need for increasing the facilities to enable students to receive education at the higher levels in the training colleges and central institutions has also been allowed for. I am giving a lot of details because it may be helpful to the House to know how the figures have been arrived at. The new Bursaries Regulations made in 1957 and 1958 will enable more students to receive bursary assistance; they prescribe higher rates of allowances and lower parental income scales. Allowance has been made for this.
The education authorities also expect that the number of students attending full-time and day-release courses at further education centres will rise during the period as a result of the general encouragement being given to these forms
216
of education; and account has been taken of this in their estimates. Their estimates also make provision for an increase in contributions to the Youth Service and other bodies in respect of prospective developments in this field.
I turn now to health—
Miss Margaret Herbison: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of education, I should like to ask whether he can tell us by how much the Department cut the estimates which local authorities gave for building and capital investment during 1960–61. He has told us that where there was a difference the Government allowed the estimates for 1959–60 to stand, but not the estimates for 1960–61.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Lady will realise how the problem arose. I will not attempt to give a categorical answer now, but I do not think that there was a cut. I should, however, like to check that, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will deal with the point when he winds up the debate.
Mr. J. Grimond: The Order says that the amount to be received by each authority will be notified as soon as possible. Is there to be further discussion with local authorities about the amount, or has discussion finished? Also, will there be an opportunity in the House to discuss the amounts?
Mr. Maclay: The position is that there will be no further discussion because the method of distribution is laid down by the formula which appears in the Act.
Mr. Grimond: It cannot be altered?
Mr. Maclay: No, it cannot be altered. That is laid down and has been decided by the House. The formula will be applied to the sum and local authorities will be notified as soon as practicable. There are reasons, into which I do not propose to go at this stage unless hon. Members wish it, why it is not possible to give at this moment the precise distribution, but there is a great difference in the English position. The formula is not in the English Act, and one point of difficulty which we are up against is that we have to find out the standard rateable value before we can get the final result. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go

217
into that point in great detail, I can, but I think it would be better to leave it to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are very convincing reasons why it would not be practicable or wise to give the final distribution figure in advance.
Allowance has been made for increased expenditure on occupational and day care centres for the mentally handicapped, for the provision of additional psychiatric social workers. and for the boarding out of increased numbers of mental defectives, equivalent to expansion at about one and a half times the rate in previous years.
The Domestic Health Service is playing an important part in the care of the aged and in reducing the demand for hospital beds and for accommodation in local authority welfare homes. There has already been considerable expansion in this service, the number of helper hours during 1958–59 being just about half as much again as the number of hours in 1953–54 and an allowance has been made for continued growth of this service.
Account has also been taken of the need for new clinics and day nurseries, for increases in nursing staffs, and for increased dental services for mothers and young children, for increased chiropody services for old people and for the expansion of the anti-poliomyelitis programme announced in the House of Commons on 21st July, 1958. I hope that the House is not bored by these data. It is important for a full understanding of what we have done in arriving at the final figure.
Allowance has been made for some increase in establishment of firemen to take account of likely developments in the service. The proposals by fire authorities for obtaining appliances and other equipment and for continuing their programme for the replacement of out of date hydrants have, in general, been accepted.
Provision has been made for an agreed increase in the number of children in care as foreseen by the local authorities, and allowance has been made for the further development of the boarding out of children received into care. Allowance has also been made for improvements in existing children's homes and for replacement of some large and less suitable homes by some small family-group homes.
218
I come next to town and country planning. Grants are at present paid under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts, towards the cost of the acquisition, clearing and preliminary development of land in readiness for other forms of development such as industry, shops and houses. The local planning authorities have estimated that in 1958–59 they will acquire for planning purposes about 60 per cent. more land than they did during the previous year. Allowance has been made for the continuance of this increase in planning work, at an equally high rate during the two years covered by the first Grant Order.
Next, road safety. The estimates of expenditure on road safety and training submitted by road safety committees have been increased to make provision for the Child Cyclists' Training Scheme, which we hope will receive general support. All these details show the great care with which future possibilities have been examined by the Department in conjunction with the local authorities. They represent the fulfilment of everything that we have said in the debates at the various stages leading up to the General Grant Order.
The welfare services for the handicapped are an extremely important item. The Report of the Piercy Committee, Cmd. 9983, indicated that, with the exception of the services for the blind, there was room for considerable expansion in the services provided for handicapped persons. These services are not at present grant-aided, but an allowance has been made in the general grant towards the cost of their development.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Secretary of State has mentioned a whole list of services and in each case has ended by saying that an allowance has been made for it in the general grant. Would it not have been helpful if he had told us how much the allowance was in each case?
Mr. Maclay: The precise details are extremely complicated and entail a mass of figures. I am informed that in every case the figures were fully agreed with the local authority associations as being appropriate and relevant. To go into the precise details of all these figures would be going a good deal beyond what is normal in this kind of debate.
Mr. William Hamilton: Would we not be able to get them by Question and Answer in the House on Tuesday?
Mr. Maclay: That is a question of which I should like notice, but I will try.
The welfare services for the handicapped are not at present grant-aided, but an allowance has been made in the general grant towards the cost of their development. The allowance provides for the expenditure to increase by 15 per cent. in each of the two years of the first grant period.
The last category to be described is the residential and temporary accommodation under the National Assistance Act, 1948. Grants are at present paid under that Act towards the cost of accommodation of the elderly and the infirm. Allowance has been made in the General Grant Order for the provision of about 250 additional places during each of the two years of the first grant period. This represents an increase of 50 per cent. above the progress likely to be achieved during the current year 1958–59.
I have given these figures in some detail and I hope that they have been of interest to the House. It will be evident from them that we have budgeted for a steady programme of expansion and the amount of the general grant shows that we have provided for a balanced and orderly development of local authority services. After these years of discussion about this new system of general grant, I feel that what I have just said shows very clearly that we have meant every word we have said throughout all the debates, in spite of the doubts which have been cast in certain quarters, sometimes from the Opposition.
In spite of the genuine anxiety felt by people outside the House that the general grant system represented something new and dangerous, I am convinced that as time goes on, when these people realise fully what we have done for this first general grant period and the new life that this will undoubtedly give to local authority discussions and the new interest in local authority work, they will appreciate that we have built and founded well. I commend the Order to the House.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. James McInnes: I am glad that the Secretary of State took the opportunity of indicating at the outset of his speech the protestations of the local authority associations at not being given adequate time to consider all that was involved in the fixing of the aggregate grants. I am, however, exceedingly sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not include in his Report all the information which he has imparted to us today. I am also sorry that he did not come to the House prepared to give the figures concerning each of the services that he has specifically mentioned.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, Section 1 of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, requires the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to make general grant Orders fixing the aggregate amount of the general grant payable, to make such Orders after consultation with the local authority associations and to lay the Orders before the House with a report explaining the considerations leading to their provision. I propose to confine my remarks largely to dealing with the failure of the Secretary of State to explain in his Report all the considerations that led him in fixing the aggregate amount of the general grant.
The right hon. Gentleman's Report is a concise document. So concise is it, in fact, that it fails lamentably to explain the considerations that the right hon. Gentleman took into account when fixing the amount of these grants. Indeed, it is so concise that the Secretary of State has been able to condense into three pages of print all the factors which he took into account in fixing these grants, whereas his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government took 21 pages and an Appendix to explain precisely the same thing. Does the Secretary of State seriously regard this contemptible little document as a Report which in any way fulfils the requirements laid down in Section 1 of the 1958 Act?
Mr. MaclayThe hon. Member has always made the case for what he calls this "contemptible" document. Has he read right through the English Report? It deals with matters additional to those with which I am dealing in my Report. Furthermore, if we feel that we can give

221
the facts with reasonable brevity, there is no particular merit in using a large number of words. That, however, is no reflection on the English White Paper.
Some of the details that I have filled in today are details of factors—they are not necessarily factors themselves—and it seemed to me that the most courteous thing to the House was to give in my Report the basic factors as laid down in the Act and to amplify them in my speech explaining them to the House.
Mr. McInnes: I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. This afternoon he utilized all his time to explain to us the relevant factors that enabled him to fix the aggregate amount of grants, whereas the Minister of Housing and Local Government explained in his Report the reasons, the factors and considerations which enable him to fix the grants for England and Wales.
Mr. Maclay: If I follow the English model I am accused of slavish imitation. If I do what I consider better, I am reproved. I stand unrepentant. I think that this is the best and most courteous way of dealing with the matter.
Mr. McInnes: It is because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves today that the Glasgow Herald, for example, thought it necessary to make this comment on the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper:
"Of the two White Papers issued, that from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is the more explicit."
Why has there been this failure to include all the information? Why has there been this timidity on the right hon. Gentleman's part in providing all the data that he has used as a basis for determining the aggregate of the grants?
Was it because in the White Paper to which he referred, Cmd. 208, which he issued in July, 1957, and which outlined the Government's reasons for introducing a system of general grants he gave away too much information? That was the occasion when the right hon. Gentleman expressed a view entirely different from that of the Minister of Housing and Local Government about the real reason for introducing the system of general grants.
I quote from paragraph 17 of Cmd. 208, which is headed "Reduction in
222
Grants". There is nothing ambiguous about the heading at least. The paragraph says:
"The Government's view is that this opportunity should be taken to make some reduction in the level of Exchequer grants. The reasons for this proposal … are briefly that local authorities now receive more from Government grants than from rates—an undesirable development if local government is to retain its financial independence …"
Mr. Maclay: We must get this straight. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member in making his speech, because I know that he is finding it much more difficult than he expected to attack the grant. The quotation which he makes takes no account of the fact, which he would have discovered if he had read on, that the whole intent of the words was that we were to have an increase of local income through rerating. It was simply a question of getting a better balance. Every hon. Member has said, at some time or another, that it is very desirable that local government should not be so dependent upon the central Government for its finances. Everybody realises that.
Mr. McInnes: I should appreciate it if the right hon. Gentleman appreciated his own difficulties rather than mine. The right hon. Gentleman is bobbing up and down there like a yo-yo in trying to justify his own decision. There is absolutely no misunderstanding on my part.
This paragraph is quite clear. There is no ambiguity about it. It is a reduction in grants. I suspect that, because of his honesty, the right hon. Gentleman was rapped over the knuckles for explaining the reason why it was necessary to introduce the block grant system, but having been rapped over the knuckles is no justification for pretending this afternoon to be uninformed. I should have preferred it if the right hon. Gentleman had been honest.
In any case, the right hon. Gentleman is in duty bound, under the Act, to submit a report explaining the considerations which led him to provide for the amount of grants shown in the report. I submit that we have not had this explanation. Indeed, the absence of explanation compelled me on 2nd December to put Questions to the right hon. Gentleman. The Answers which he gave revealed that grants payable to Scottish local authorities in respect of relevant expenditure

223
for general grant purposes had in 1956–57 exceeded the 1955–56 total by £4½ million.
The 1957–58 figures were £4½ million more than the 1956–57 figures, and the figures for 1958–59 were £4½ million more than those of 1957–58. But I find from the Secretary of State's Report that instead of this annual average increase of £4½ million, in 1959–60 there is an increase in grant of only £2¾ million, and in 1960–61 the figure is only £2 million more than that for 1959–60 Quite obviously, therefore, we in Scotland have failed to sustain what in the past has been an average increase of approximately £4½ million each year.
I regard this as an extremely serious matter. This is one of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman has not disclosed the facts in his Report. I often wonder why we in Scotland are compelled on so many occasions to elicit by way of Question and Answer in the House information which ought to be contained in documents. One needs only to look at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Report to have revealed an excellent table showing the comparative figures of grants for the past seven years and for the two years that lie ahead. Obviously, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has provided the maximum amount of information to hon. Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies.
It seems to me that the Secretary of State took a degree of comfort this afternoon from the very qualified approval which he obtained from the local authority associations in respect of his general grant proposals. This, of course, has resulted in a good deal of window-dressing. The Government proclaim that these proposals and these grants are the highest ever but, on the other hand, I could claim with equal emphasis that local government expenditure has also reached the highest total ever.
The acid test is: what percentage the proposed grants represent of the total estimated expenditure of local authorities? We do not know, nor does the Secretary of State. I am willing to give way if the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House exactly what percentage the grants for 1959, 1960 and 1961 represent of the total estimated expenditure of local authorities.
Mr. James Stuart: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is insinuating that the degree of efficiency of a local authority is to be judged by its extravagance, by the amount of money it is capable of spending?
Mr. McInnes: I do not know that I made any such imputation. It is typical of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) to put up his own dollies and start knocking them down again.
Mr. Stuart: All the hon. Gentleman is asking is how much a local authority spends, not whether it is spending efficiently.
Mr. McInnes: I would counsel the right hon. Gentleman to keep quiet in case he lets the cat out of the bag. The difficulty is that he obviously is not following my remarks—
Mr. Stuart: I am.
Mr. McInnes: I am putting to the Secretary of State what I regard as the acid test of the correct amount of grants.
Mr. Maclay: I have the figures on the comparative basis for which the hon. Member asks giving the grant as a percentage of relevant expenditure. In 1957–58, the percentage was 61·4; in 1958–59, it is estimated to be 61·7; in 1959–60, it is estimated to be 61·9 per cent.; in 1960–61, it is estimated to be 62 per cent. A rise in grant is a percentage of relevant expenditure.
Mr. McInnes: It is for us to analyse the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given us. I do not know why he did not incorporate them in his Report, as did the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Mr. Stuart: If I may make one last interruption, would the hon. Gentleman have been satisfied with 21 pages of verbiage, because that would have relieved us of this criticism?
Mr. McInnes: I would never under any circumstances have been satisfied with 21 pages of verbiage from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn. He must recognise that the ever-increasing rate burden in Scotland, and the figures I will give now will, to a degree, answer his intervention.

225
In 1945, the total rates collected in Scotland amounted to £25 million. In 1951, six years later, these had increased to £32 million, which was an increase of £7 million in six years. Between 1951 and 1957 the total rates collected increased from £32 million to £63 million, an increase in six years of £31 million. When we consider Government grants in relation to the total relevant expenditure of local authorities we must also have to consider the ever-increasing rate burden that is being imposed on the ratepayers in Scotland.
There are many other points to which I should have liked to refer, but I will only ask the right hon. Gentleman the following question. When he discussed these grants with the local authorities, were the estimates submitted put forward in the climate of the restrictions and curtailments announced to the local authorities on 17th February, 1956? Or were they submitted in the climate of expansion which the Government have so recently announced in this House? That is one thing we ought to know.
In his speech the right hon. Gentleman dealt with some of the services and gave us an approximate indication of those that have been taken into consideration and those that have not. I want to deal with the question of the provisions mentioned in his White Paper. He mentions expenditure on the welfare services for the disabled, the Town and Country Planning Bill, now before Parliament, expenditure on accommodation under the National Assistance Acts, and also states that the estimates will have regard to variations in the level of prices, costs and remuneration. He also refers to the adjustment in respect of the contribution made by Scottish education authorities to the Scottish universities, which I think is about £60,000.
There are other factors about which the right hon. Gentleman made no observations. For example, there is mental health. Having regard to the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission on Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency, the acceptance of that Report by the Government, and the recognition that it will place far greater responsibility an local authorities, will the Joint Under-Secretary of State tell us what provision has been made in respect of that service? I observe from the OFFICIAL REPORT of
226
yesterday's debate that the Minister of Housing and Local Government stated that his estimates as a whole allowed for an annual rate of development in this respect, in each of the years 1959–60 and 1960–61, at roughly two-and-a-half times the rate which has obtained in recent years.
Another service of particular social significance is that of domestic help. Did the Secretary of State make any provision for that service in his discussions with the local authorities or in the adjustments he made of their estimates? Does he visualise any appreciable increase in this service? Has the right hon. Gentleman made any provision for improved or additional welfare centres for mothers and young children? I also think that he mentioned in his speech provision in respect of midwives, health visitors and home nurses, but he did not say whether or not provision had been made for the expanded anti-poliomyelitis vaccination programme which was mentioned in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned that provision had been made for an increase in manpower in the fire service and for the progress that will be made in that service during the next year or two. I cannot recollect whether he referred to the development of school crossing patrols, police traffic patrols, and road safety, but if no provision has been made in respect of those services, perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will tell us what the position is.
Finally, did the right hon. Gentleman disclose all those relevant factors during his discussions with the local authority associations? For example, I direct his attention to paragraph 6 of his own Report, where he says:
"These totals … take account of such future variations in the level of prices, costs and remuneration as can be foreseen, and also any probable fluctuation in the demand for the relevant services."
In paragraph 9 of his Report, the Minister of Housing and Local Government says:
"Nothing is included for possible further increases in the price level of goods and services. Whether or not stability is wholly achieved during the period of grant, it is natural that public authorities will seek, as they normally do, to meet increases by economies and they will constantly improve efficiency by the use of new techniques."

227
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the different approach in the two countries? Since the legislation for Scotland and for England and Wales is precisely the same, I find it difficult to appreciate why we have different lines of approach towards these matters of price levels for goods and services. I hope that when he replies the Joint Under-Secretary will take the opportunity of answering the questions I have put.
I conclude by saying that while I recognise that the general grants were, admittedly, based on estimates submitted by the local authorities themselves, subject, of course, to adjustments by the Scottish Departments, I beg hon. Members opposite to realise that the highly desirable development and expansion of local government services rest not with the local authorities, but with the Government. In that knowledge I genuinely believe that when the implications of the general grants are fully appreciated by individual authorities, then and only then will they recognise the great betrayal.
4.23 p.m.
Mr. W. S. Duthie: I must admit that I am still gravely concerned about the Order. It puts into effect the provisions of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, which caused many of us much heart-burning in the earlier part of the year. The round figures put forward by my right hon. Friend appear to be fair enough, but the uncertainty and grave disquiet are caused by the difficulty of knowing exactly how individual areas will fare in the distribution.
Yesterday, when the Order for England and Wales came before the House, Members from English and Welsh constituencies were furnished with a complete apportionment of the grants for their areas. The list was complete, exhaustive and comprehensive. There is no such list for Scotland. I am amazed that we should be asked to legislate without being aware of the local implications of the Order.
As my right hon. Friend knows, I voiced my grave concern for my constituency at various stages of the Act and voted against its Third Reading because of the inequitable treatment which my county was arbitrarily receiving in the apportionment of the money. I was told
228
that this was because of the application of a formula. That is still a complete enigma to me. I have never had the formula explained, nor whence its source, nor how it was applied, nor the reason for it, nor its logic.
Scottish Members are now being asked to buy a pig in a poke. That is how the matter appears to me. It may be argued that if we do not pass the Order now we shall halt the machinery of distribution. That may be, but I must register my strong protest that the Government should come to the House with an Order of this importance without bringing forward, also, the precise information which is vital to making a correct decision.
I am merely applying normal business principles. There is no board of directors worthy of the name which would engage upon a decision of this nature without having the fullest information. During the early stages of the Bill, which is now an Act, I criticised the somewhat grandiose and over-confident expectation about local taxation. The prognostications about local industry which we then made have been realised all too unfortunately. There has been a falling off of orders in the shipyards and there is every likelihood that their contribution will be even less than we surmised.
I do not want to hold up financial provision for Scottish local authorities, but I protest at having to come to the House to consider this Order without knowing exactly how my constituents will fare, and on behalf of my constituency I register that protest most emphatically.
4.28 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I shall be extremely brief. I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), because, like him, I represent a county which will fare badly under the new formula. As I said in previous debates, it may be that for certain counties in Scotland a case can be made for reducing grants. I do not know, but it is possible that that might be so. What I have to complain about is that no one has argued that Banff, Shetland, or any other county which will lose under the new arrangements, deserves to have its grants reduced. It is agreed that it has happened by ill-luck, but ill-luck is not a good basis for Government legislation.

229
I understand that on this Order we cannot again consider the whole principle of the new arrangements for the general grant. I shall, therefore, confine myself to joining with the hon. Member for Banff in protesting about the reduction of grant to counties which are to be badly hit. I share the misgiving expressed from the Opposition Front Bench about what will happen if prices rise. I understand from the Secretary of State that we are to have no chance to alter these figures. They are to last for two years, within which time there may be a substantial movement in prices.
I very much regret that, unlike the English Members, we shall not have an opportunity of judging how our particular counties and local authorities will fare. Even if we cannot alter the figures we should at least like to feel that we are in a position to comment upon them, criticise them and have them explained by the Government. That is the least the House of Commons should expect to be able to do to fulfil its duty.
Over the next two years we hope for some developments in certain areas in Scotland, including the North, which will throw an additional burden upon local authorities. We hope that some assistance will be given to encourage new industries to come in. and we hope for some assistance in the extension of certain services, including education, at any rate in my county. Some allowance is made for education on page 3 of the Order, but it is not a very large amount, especially if there is an increase in prices, and other factors do not seem to have been allowed for at all.
I end by reiterating what I have said before namely, that it is not possible to have a much larger burden placed upon the rates in the North. I am opposed to the whole rating system, which has become anomalous, and is a very bad system. I realise that that is a different point but, good, bad or indifferent, we cannot go on piling burdens on the rates, and if the Government are to go forward and tell local authorities that they are being offered a wonderful vista of the time when they can run their own affairs, they must provide local authorities with new means of finance.
I maintain my original objections to the whole principle and I wish that we
230
had been given, or could be given in the future, more details of the way in which individual authorities will be affected by these proposals, because we are bound to be concerned with individual cases.
4.32 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I hope that the Secretary of State will now pay more serious attention to the complaint made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) about the lack of information, because that complaint has been reinforced by one of his hon. Friends and also by the Liberal Party, so that representations in this respect are unanimous. so far.
My hon. Friend was being generous when he said that three pages of the White Paper explained how the Secretary of State had arrived at the figures. In fact, the White Paper gives us about two paragraphs. It is all contained on page 3, in the notes under the table and in paragraph 6. All that the right hon. Gentleman says in the White Paper is:
"These totals … take account of such future variations in the level of prices, costs and remuneration as can be foreseen, and also of any probable fluctuation in the demand for the relevant services. They also appear, having regard to the fact that the revised estimates of relevant expenditure for 1959–60 and 1960–61 are larger than the actual net expenditure … incurred in 1957–58, to make reasonable provision for the need of developing these services and for the extent that, having regard to economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop them."
All that he has done is to take the words from the Act and say, "This is what we have done. This is the answer" These are the exact words of the Act. That is not good enough. It is not the way in which Scottish Members should be treated when asked to consider the expenditure of about £50 million of public money. The Joint Under-Secretary should give us a better answer than we have had from the Secretary of State.
It is difficult for hon. Members who have been given a mere paragraph of information, such as I have read, and have then listened to a speech from the Secretary of State, to follow exactly what sort of considerations have led to these conclusions. All the information given us by the right hon. Gentleman could have been put into the White Paper. He had all that information when the White

231
Paper was published. It would not have been irrelevant; it would have helped us to understand what had been done, and would have enabled us to discuss this grant more intelligently than we can at present.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to derive great comfort from the fact that the percentage of local government expenditure to be met by the general grant is being increased. The present policy of the Government is to try to encourage public bodies to undertake public expenditure so as to do something about unemployment. In those circumstances, one would expect this expenditure to be increased. The great question which arises is: what happens when the Government decide to decrease expenditure, as they have been doing in the past two or three years? That is when the real test of this system will emerge. Local authorities will not be able to cut down their expenditure so readily as the Government will expect of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central asked about the level of prices, costs and remuneration. We have been told nothing about that, and the White Paper says nothing about it. What did the Government have in mind when they made allowances for those things? We do not know, and we should be told whether the Government expect any increase.
The Secretary of State told us that the value of the work to be begun in the next year or two in respect of education was £30 million. It would be much more relevant if we were told the amount to be spent in each of these years. What do the Government expect to spend in those years, over and above what is at present being spent on school buildings? Last week, a White Paper was issued dealing with this question, and the figure for Scotland was put at about £60 million. How much of that is to be spent next year, or the year after? If we know that, we shall be able to see whether the general grant makes sense, but we cannot intelligently discuss the question whether it should be increased unless we know to what extent the Government expect to embark upon this programme, and how much they intend to spend in the next two years.
Is the programme to extend over twenty, ten or five years? The right hon.
232
Gentleman told us that he expects to start £30 million worth of work on new school buildings during this period, but the important question is: how much does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be spent in that period? We can judge this only in terms of the amounts that local authorities will spend, and we should be given some information about them. There are many other items about which we should have more information if we are expected to arrive at a decision with any feeling of knowing what the facts are.
One of the few things that is explained in the White Paper is the figure for town and country planning. The Town and Country Planning Bill, now before Parliament, proposes to amend the basis for compulsory acquisition of land. It is not expected that the annual increased relevant expenditure incurred by local authorities, if the Bill is enacted, will be a figure of any magnitude.
The amount has been estimated at £20,000 next year. When we were discussing the Bill on Second Reading we were told that the local government expenditure involved in this was £1¼ million and that the largest part of the expenditure was for housing, which is, of course, not part of the relevant expenditure, and that that large part accounted for £500,000. We were told also that the total increased expenditure was about 25 per cent., which was £300,000. On housing, for instance, we were told that, taking an average of 25 per cent., increased expenditure expected under that heading would account for an increase of £125,000.
What about all the other expenditure with which local authorities will now be concerned? If the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman during the Second Reading debate were correct, I would have thought that the figure, instead of being £20,000, would be £150,000 to £175,000. That is my calculation. Whether it is correct, or £50,000 out, there is still a very big difference between £20,000 and £175,000.
What are we to assume from this? Are we to assume that when the right hon. Gentleman gave the figures previously he was not giving us figures based upon any knowledge of the facts? Now that he has discovered the facts, he finds that the

233
amounts are £20,000 in 1950–60 and £40,000 in 1960–61. That seems to me to be the reason why that particular figure was given. But I do not want to say anything more about this matter, because my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central has dealt with it very fully.
I want, in conclusion, to emphasise the need for the Secretary of State to treat the House much more courteously than he has done over this White Paper. I do not know what he has been accustomed to, but he ought by this time to know that we like to know the reasons why certain conclusions or recommendations are placed before hon. Members for approval. It is not good enough to serve us up with something of this kind. I am quite prepared to accept that there may be certain technical difficulties in connection with the publication of actual figures for local authorities, but in giving the reasons why the general grant is on a certain level there is no reason at all why we should not be treated better than this. I hope that the next time that a general grant Order comes before the House we shall be given something which explains the reason which has led the Government to put forward their proposals.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: We have now had four speeches on this Order, apart from that of the Secretary of State, and not one of them has supported the principles upon which it is based or the manner in which it was presented. It is too bad that the Secretary of State should come here to present a complicated Order and talk for just a quarter of an hour on it. He had all the time in the world. There was, quite clearly, no great desire on the part of hon. Members on his side of the House to speak on it. He could have taken one-and-a-half hours or even two hours. We would have endured it. At any rate, we should then have had some facts on which to base our arguments.
The right hon. Gentleman's statement reminded me of the kind of statistics which we get from the Soviet Union—designed to conceal more than they publicise. We had, of course, the usual bromides, which we have been sick and tired of hearing in the course of the legislation concerned with this Order—more freedom for local authorities; the ability to raise more money for themselves in
234
the form of rerating. It is rather curious that the right hon. Gentleman used the argument—more freedom for local authorities—while, at the same time, pointing out that the percentage of grant on relevant expenditure would steadily increase over the next few years.
If the argument is to be sustained that local authorities are to get increased freedom from rerating, why not—and we repeat the argument which we used in Committee—go the whole hog and rerate completely? The Institute of Public Administration, two years ago, recommended precisely that and, moreover, recommended the complete rerating of agriculture. If we want to give freedom to local authorities we can very soon give them freedom to raise more money than they have at present by measures of that kind.
The right hon. Gentleman also said, in a carefully considered peroration, that we were budgeting for a steady programme of expansion. It is rather strange, in view of the context when the idea was originally introduced, that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Treasury Ministers at Tory conferences and in this House gave as the reason for introducing this that it was one of the measures of economy which the Government were then introducing.
Of course, the difficulty that the Government are now in is that the context has completely changed. The Government are now afraid of a slump of their own creation and, in fact, are going out of their way to tell local authorities in England and Scotland to spend as much as they can on any kind of service they can to stop unemployment. Precisely because the context has changed the Government are now trying by this block grant system to get local authorities to spend more. The difficulty of course, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, is that they will do that only by increasing their rates. The rate burden now is an intolerable one for many local authorities.
The Secretary of State made great play with the educational advance that this Order will allow. I am not sure that local authorities will be convinced by that, or that we shall get the kind of expansion that we want, that the country demands, and that the Government White Papers have laid down as essential.

235
In all the fine talk about expenditure on education which we have heard today from the Secretary of State, and in the contents of the recently issued White Paper, there is no mention whatever of the fundamental question, which does not relate to buildings at all but to the quality of the teachers. A good teacher teaching in a barn is better than an inferior teacher teaching in a first-class building. To get good teachers we must pay them adequately, but there is no mention in the White Paper, or in the references to the general grant, of any provision for a substantial increase in teachers salaries.
It is that in which teachers are interested. They are not so much interested in the buildings, but in what they will get. To me, that is a reasonable attitude. The record of the Secretary of State in this respect is regarded with suspicion. The recent 5 per cent. increase in teachers salary was delayed by the right hon. Gentleman as long as possible, so the teachers are suspicious about his attitude towards them.
The Secretary of State said that there would be some expansion in the Youth Employment Service. He did not give us any figures or tell us what that expansion would be. It is certain that the service has long been recognised as the Cinderella of the social services. Recently the Select Committee on Estimates made some scathing comments on the attitude of Ministers towards the service. The problem of juvenile unemployment is increasing. Boys and girls leaving school find it difficult to get jobs, and the service must be expanded. I should like to have some specific information from the Government about the future of this service.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of what has been said today about his extremely discourteous attitude to the House. He should have provided us with something that we could get our teeth into by giving us more details.
4.52 p.m.
Mr. J. C. George: This debate has taken an amazing line. It is not so much an indication of a defeat of the Opposition as of a complete and absolute rout. Only once this afternoon have we heard a word on education. For the rest of the time hon. Gentlemen opposite have been wandering about unhappily amid a lot of trivialities.
Mr. Willis: I asked how much was to be spent on school buildings each year. Does the hon. Member consider that a triviality?
Mr. George: If the hon. Member had read the White Paper he would have seen that £65 million is to be authorised.
Mr. Willis: But how much each year?
Mr. George: I admit that the hon. Member thought up one question, and I readily give him credit for that, but it is the only point which has emerged.
I thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) did himself far less than justice today. We generally look upon him and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) as virile, well-informed opponents who can advance a strong case whenever there is the slightest opportunity to do so. But not today.
Mr. Willis: We had no information.
Mr. McInnes: Surely the hon. Member for recognises that not a single full-stop or comma in the speech of the Secretary of State or the Order he presented had anything to do with education. How, then, can we deal with the subject?
Mr. George: The hon. Member reminds me that this afternoon we have heard demands for details, and the reason why it was possible to reach agreement with the local authorities. But it is all amicably agreed, so why should everything be repeated over and over again? The whole thing has been agreed.
Mr. T. Fraser: It is not agreed.
Mr. George: I am being charitable to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central when I say that he made the worst of a very bad case.
The violent opposition which extended from one end of Scotland to the other, and which was stirred up and fanned by hon. Members opposite was not related to details, important as they are, but to the question of education. That was what the fires blazed over during the Committee stage discussions and during the Second Reading debate on the Bill—but not today. There has not been one word about that today except from the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton).

237
This White Paper has taken the course which I expected, the inevitable course, because we on this side of the House have clear plans for education—
Mr. Hamilton: We know that.
Mr. George: —and if hon. Members opposite were in doubt about our intentions for education, it would have been more to the point had they expressed their doubts today. But we have not heard a word.
I had no doubt that the general grant would show that we on this side of the House fully realise the tempo at which we have to live today. We know that in this age of scientific advance we can prosper only by producing more and more educated people. That is our intention. Year by year we propose to increase the number of educated people coming from our schools and universities. The old story that education should be cheap and efficient is obsolete. We must look forward to an expansive expensive educational system and the general grant shows that we are prepared to face that fact. We have to meet the challenge in the days that lie ahead. If we do not do so, this country will drop into mediocrity and that is something which hon. Members on this side of the House do not intend shall happen. We shall face the cost of the education system and match the days in which we live. That is shown in the White Paper.
Mr. T. Fraser: Will the hon. Member tell us in which paragraph of the White Paper there is an indication of the intention of the Government to pursue this expansionist policy for education?
Mr. George: I spoke of the White Paper. I should have been more explicit and referred to "Education in Scotland". If the hon. Member had read it—
Mr. Fraser: I have read it. I have seen that the programme of expenditure of £65 million is to begin in the year 1960–61. Despite what was said in the White Paper, we do not know how this expenditure will be incurred.
Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman is too wise in the ways of the House to think that the Government would produce a White Paper of such importance without having based it on very sound
238
calculations. He knows better than that. It is all clearly stated.
Mr. Fraser: It is not.
Mr. George: During the discussions on the Bill the impression was created that we on this side had laid plans to sabotage education. No other conclusion could be arrived at. Had hon. Gentlemen opposite taken the trouble to examine our performance in this Parliament they would have found sufficient confirmation of our real intention.
Hysterical criticism by teachers has extended from one end of Scotland to the other. The impression was given that the Government intended to sabotage education. On page 30 of a publication entitled, "The Threat to Education" it is stated:
"Never before has there been such universal recognition of the extent to which our survival as an industrial and commercial power depends on the improvement of our educational system. This survival must not he placed in jeopardy by the folly of our Government."
Mr. Hamilton: Surely the hon. Gentleman will not let it go out from the House that he is charging the teachers with mass hysteria? He should withdraw that offensive expression.
Mr. George: I am not going to withdraw it. It was hysterical propaganda, based on fear.
Mr. John Rankin: Shame.
Mr. George: Had they examined our performance they would have seen that we had laid a sound basis for proper expansion of the education system. The picture painted was that the Secretary of State would indulge in slashing the grants and smashing education prospects. The folly in that is now revealed. We see steadily rising expenditure to be incurred on the education system in the years ahead.
Mr. Fraser: Where?
Mr. George: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) approaches this very serious matter with too much levity. So far, the subject has been neglected by the Opposition, and I am now trying to deal with it.
Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us where in the White Paper, the

239
General Grant Order or the other publication to which he has referred there is any evidence of the Government assisting in the financing of this expansive expensive education plan which the hon. Member says the Government support? I am not treating the matter with any levity. It is a very serious matter.
Mr. George: All that one needs to see is the expanding total of expenditure on education. Each year it is rising.
Mr. McInnes: That is because of wages and salaries.
Mr. George: The hon. Member says that it is caused by wages and salaries. If wages and salaries did not rise he would still object. The expenditure on education has increased in real terms. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education yesterday took up that very point, saying that
"… between January, 1956, and June, 1958, there was an increase in the retail price index of 10 per cent. During this period, expenditure on education was rising by approximately 14 per cent. Therefore, the real development in education during those years in real terms was somewhere in the region of the difference between 14 and 10 per cent. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1958; Vol. 597, c. 97.]
That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's interjection.
We have seen the general grant, and it must be a great disappointment to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. McInnes: And to the hon. Member.
Mr. George: Not to me. It is what I expected. The level of the debate from the other side of the House shows the intense disappointment of the Opposition.
I want to look at the education system in the light of our past performance and future prospects and see what the leading authorities on education say about the performance of the Government. On the technical education side here is what is said by the magazine "Technology", published by The Times:
"Millions of pounds are being spent on technological and technical training. Nothing like as great a jump forward has been tried before. It is a revolutionary period."
That is what was said on the question of our technical education, which the Opposition try to deride.
I bring to my assistance John Vaizey, than whom there is no greater authority
240
on education costs in Britain today. He is the author of an important book, "The Costs of Education". He pointed out in a letter to The Times, on 25th November, that during this Parliament a real, indeed dramatic, advance in education has been achieved, and said that one more surge forward would see our education system placed on a permanent, sound and happy foundation within ten years.
That is the stage which we have reached. Hon. Members on this side of the House are too well aware of their responsibilities to the young and to industry ever to fail in their obligations towards the education system. We know that education must expand, not only in quantity and quality but in complexity, and, therefore, the expense must grow as the years go by. It will grow, and my hon. Friends will see that education is properly catered for and that a sufficient amount of money is allocated to enable local authorities to carry out their duty to the young.
There is a glittering future for Britain in the age that lies ahead if we educate our people to the proper standard. There is a growing realisation among parents that the future of our children lies more and more within the education system. We want to marry the desires of the people, the needs of industry and the challenge of the future, and provide all the finance which is necessary to ensure that our country has the future which it can have if wisely governed in the years immediately ahead.
Ridicule has been poured on the idea that the change to the general grant would make local authority work more attractive and interesting. Throughout the years we have seen it slipping back in quality and interest. The Order ushers in a new era when the authorities will have round sums of money to which they themselves will have to direct close attention to ensure that the money is properly spent. No longer can they simply say, "Spend £x on education, and 60 per cent. will flow from the Government".
The authorities now have to look at the round sum and distribute it carefully in the two years that lie ahead. Without doubt, it will mean great debate in the finance committees of the future. It will mean a decision on priorities and a fight

241
for priorities, and that can have only a good effect upon local government. We all know that local government needs the injection of some new life if it is to continue to play an important part in government. We want it to survive and be effective.
The Member for Fife, West said that no hon. Member on this side had spoken in favour of the general grant today, but I speak fully and completely in favour of it. My confidence in the Government has been well founded, and I am completely content.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I did not intend to speak in this debate until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George). I cannot let it pass without comment. It was full of sobs, as though the Government are the only people in favour of the education of the children of Scotland. It was full of emotion, but it was like the Order—vague, full of hypotheses and lacking any concreteness.
Apparently the hon. Member does not appreciate the basis of the Opposition criticism, though it was put very clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who put categorical questions to the Minister and indicated with great clarity the defects in the Minister's speech. Yet to the hon. Member for Pollok all that has been like water off a duck's back.
The basis of our criticism is the lack of detail. The House is being asked to deal with very large sums of money. The Opposition are very glad to spend large sums of money on the education of the children, and the Labour Government of 1945–50 showed that by the way it legislated for the better education of the children of Scotland and the better remuneration of their teachers. The basis of our criticism has nothing to do with that, but is that sufficient facts are not being put before the House to show why we are being asked to vote these large sums. Parliament is being asked to deal with £50,125,000 for the year beginning 16th May, 1959, and £52,075,000 for the year beginning 16th May, 1960. By all means let us spend money on the education of the children—we all want that to happen—but we want a clear exposition from the Secretary of State about it.
242
All this is based on Section 1 of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, which is as clear as anything could be. Section 2 (1) lays down specific requirements. I quote:
"In fixing the aggregate amount of the general grants for any year the Secretary of State shall take into consideration"—
three things. One is
"(a) the latest information available to him of the rate of relevant expenditure"—
It is a long subsection, and I will not trouble the House with it, but that is clear and concrete, and the Secretary of State has not put that clearly before the House. The second is
"(b) any probable fluctuation in the demand for the services …"
mentioned. Neither has the right hon. Gentleman done that, and the House is entitled, when dealing with such large sums, to have it clearly put before it. The third requirement is
"(c) the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop those services."
These have not been put specifically and clearly before the House.
Instead of that, we have been offered hypotheses, speculations, estimates and expectations, but where are the concrete facts? I submit that it is the duty of the Government, in asking the House to vote such large sums of money, welcome as they may be, as I have said, for the benefit of the children of Scotland, to put them clearly and precisely before the House.
If we look at the small print on the second page of the Report of the Secretary of State for Scotland under Section 1 of the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, we find in that print the justification for what I have said about expectations and speculations. Let us look at that small print. In paragraph (a) we find:
"The expenditure on welfare services for the disabled does not at present attract grant, and for purposes of general grant account is taken only of development above the 1958–59 level."
Further, it states:
"It is not expected … the amount has been estimated … estimates of expenditure"—
The whole of this submission to the House by the Government is full of hypotheses,

243
estimates, expectations and things of that sort. That is not the way to present a request to the House to vote large sums of money.
Let me end as I began by making clear that we on this side of the House are strongly in favour of the best educational service for the children of Scotland and the best remuneration for the teachers, but I say that, when such an Order as this is presented to the House, welcome as it may be, it is showing disrespect to the House not to adduce in its support concrete facts and figures.
5.14 p.m.
Mr. John Rankin: I am sorry the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) has had to leave his place. We enjoyed his speech. He always speaks with vigour, and at least he does give an impression of conviction, although there was a tendency today to overwhelm that conviction by a somewhat hysterical delivery, which was perhaps imposed upon him by the fact that he had so few supporters on his side.
I note that the figures of estimated expenditure by the local authorities for 1959–60 and 1960–61 have been compiled after consultation with the local authorities, and I assume that when the appropriate departments and the Minister were consulting them about this expenditure they explained to the local authorities that the expenditure comprehended the amount of money which had to be expended in the White Paper called "The Next Step in Education."
I take it that the contents of that White Paper, although they have only now become available to us, were carefully explained to the local authorities and that it was made clear to them that the rise of less than £3 million in expenditure represented the amount which would be spent under the new White Paper which has just been issued. If that is the case, then the explanation which is given on page 3 in paragraph 6 is not complete, because the document before us now—the only one which we have to guide us—tells us that the totals of expenditure were adjusted to take into account—
"variations in prices, costs and remuneration … and also of any probable fluctuation in the demand for the relevant services."
That is all. There is no reference there to any future policy such as that outlined by the hon. Member for Pollok.
244
It is worthy of note that, out of a total amount of £83 million, which is anticipated will be spent by the local authorities in 1960–61, when the new White Paper proposals will be in operation, roughly £72 million will be spent on education. Yet, despite an expenditure of £72 million, the Secretary of State gave us no hint in his Report how that money will be spent—not one word. Surely, when we are dealing with a sum so large as £72 million it is the business and, indeed, the duty of the Secretary of State to tell us what was planned in the expenditure of that money.
I know that it is not our province today to explore "The Next Step in Education," which outlines Tory plans, but that White Paper has been criticised in the newspapers. It has been examined and, as far as its purpose is concerned, most educationists have concluded that under the White Paper policy very little money at all will be spent by the year 1960. Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary, if he is to reply, may have a word to say on that subject and tell us exactly what is comprehended within this increase of £3 million, with its consequent increase in grant.
I would refer to the fact that the Secretary of State did say in his speech that some £30 million would be consumed in the building of new schools throughout Scotland. Of course, the hon. Member for Pollok will agree with me that in Glasgow we particularly welcome that.
As I have said in speeches in this House on the subject of new schools in Glasgow, not very far from where I live there is a school called Pollok Academy. It is still being used; yet it was condemned in 1925 as not being a place in which children should be taught. It used to be a polling booth in local elections, but the local authority had to stop that use because when parents went into the school to vote they could not find their way out and people had to be employed to rescue them and get them out of the school properly. This school is still packed to capacity.
Is that school now to go out of service and to be replaced by a school built under the new £30 million programme? If that is the case, almost the whole £30 million will be consumed in Glasgow, as we have many schools much worse than

245
the one I have described. I took a former Joint Under-Secretary of State who was in charge of education to these schools to let him see with his own eyes the problem that faced him in Glasgow. We shall want a great deal of that £30 million to deal merely with the type of school in which our pupils are being taught. When the Joint Under-Secretary of State replies, I should like him to say how much of the £30 million will come to Glasgow.
When the Secretary of State was talking about the next step in education, I did not know whether he referred to the £30 million or the Order which is before us. After the intervention of the hon. Member for Pollok, he will now have to tell us with which part of Tory policy he is dealing when he replies. The right hon. Gentleman said that we needed more than 1,000 teachers right away. I do not know in which pocket the right hon. Gentleman is carrying them, but Glasgow has been seeking for years to get more teachers. We have discussed the matter in this House, and, as the hon. Member for Pollok knows there has been far more animation on this side of the House than on the Government benches about the problems of education. He needs to look hack only to the Estimates debate on education in July, when his was one of the few voices raised from the Government benches.
Mr. T. Fraser: His was one of the few voices on Government benches which were educated in local authority schools.
Mr. Rankin: The Secretary of State is to provide a thousand teachers. That is a tall order, but once again Glasgow could take all those teachers now. The local authority was recently asking for 500 teachers immediately for its secondary schools. Is this part of the next step in the Tory plans for Scottish education, as the hon. Member for Pollok suggested? It involves salaries. We shall not get a thousand teachers easily at the present salaries.
I am sorry to mention again some points which I put before the Secretary of State during the debate in July, when I pointed out that we should not get the 500 or 1,000 teachers that we need now until we paid salaries competitive with those paid in other parts of our economy.
246
A graduate with first-class or second-class honours can command an initial salary at the level of £2,000 per year, or at least £1,500. Can we get him into the education service at the level of education salaries now being offered? The Observer and the Sunday Times have pages of advertisements every week offering jobs not only in this country but in the Commonwealth to graduates with first-class or second-class honours at salaries that put completely in the shade those offered to teachers. The Secretary of State says he will provide 1,000 teachers; is he bringing the salary level of the teaching profession nearer to the competing demands of industry and other professions? Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary of State will tell us about these things when he replies.
I gathered from the Secretary of State that the education programme will deal with the county colleges. That is a very welcome step indeed. We have been hoping for something like that for a long while. It should be done and done quickly. There is a gap in our educational system between the ages of 15 and 18 that has been left open for far too long. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to fill that gap. If so, I welcome this next step in education which the Government propose to take. Where will the right hon. Gentleman find the teaching staff? That brings us back again to the point that if he is to get the staff he must be prepared to pay salaries which will attract men with the proper qualifications into this completely necessary work.
Of course, I support all the hon. Member for Pollok said about the need to develop the technological side of education. He and I have spoken freely on that subject and agree on it. I wonder whether his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, who may say that they agree with the hon. Member about the need for technological education and providing more money for it, will agree with the hon. Member and me when we demand that the technological university shall be given the same status as the existing university and allowed to award degrees? Unless it has that status it will not produce students of recognised equivalent status in the world outside.

247
In view of the fact that so many countries are giving to technological universities the right to confer degrees and not have to be brought under the umbrella of general universities, could we hear that in this endeavour to further education the Government are prepared to recognise the status of our technological universities and to give them the right to award their own degrees? It will be interesting to know whether the answer of the Secretary of State to that is in the affirmative or in the negative. If it is in the negative, the next step the Government propose to take and all the money they say they are to spend will not help technological education along the lines it should be going if we are to keep our place in the world.
If it were only to satisfy the hon. Member for Pollok that we on this side of the House are interested in education, I could go on speaking for a long time. If duration of speech were proof of intention, I should be perfectly prepared to overwhelm him with proof, but I believe other business is to follow and, as that other business is to follow at seven o'clock—or is it eight o'clock?—[An HON. MEMBER: "Six o'clock"] Oh, six o'clock? Good heavens! I must apologise to my hon. Friends and to the Government Front Bench. I thought I had until six o'clock in which to finish what I had to say, but in view of the fact—
Mr. Willis: Who said it was six o'clock?
Mr. Rankin: I do not know. Maybe it was a general conspiracy to get me to sit down. I think I have said enough, however, to convince the hon. Member for Pollok that he ought to withdraw many of the things he said and to give the Joint Under-Secretary something to which to reply. I hope he will reply in a very favourable way. On this side of the House we are still dreadfully doubtful of Tory intentions towards education. It may be that we shall be proved wrong tonight. I am a firm enough believer in education to hope that I shall be shown the error of my ways.
5.34 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: If there is one thing which has come out of this debate, it is that we ought not to have had a debate with the hopelessly
248
small amount of information we have before us. We have had a White Paper from the Secretary of State which has not said anything at all about the detailed considerations he took into account in arriving at the global figure set out in the General Grant Order.
We have heard criticism from all parts of the House by hon. Members who have said that before they can possibly discuss the Order they need to know what their individual local authorities are to get out of it. There is no doubt in my mind that the right hon. Gentleman had a plain duty in terms of the Act to provide us with much more information than he provided, either in the White Paper or in his speech, or in both put together. We should have had some indication, albeit an estimate, of haw this will affect different local authorities so that that would enable hon. Members to consult local authorities.
It is all right for hon. Members glibly to say that these things were discussed with the local authorities. These things were not discussed with the local authorities. The local authorities did not individually know what they are to get, and the local authorities individually have not even had time up to now to get copies of the General Grant Order to see what the global sum is and how the figure is to move over the years.
The Secretary of State said a bit about education. It is interesting to note that, although education accounts for seven-eighths of all money accounted for in the relevant expenditure of local authorities, the Secretary of State did not find it convenient to say anything at all about education, about the development of our education services, or how these figures were arrived at in the White Paper, which is a report of the considerations which led him to determine certain figures.
Mr. Willis: He is supposed to explain the considerations.
Mr. Fraser: Yes, he does not even mention the considerations, let alone explain them in the Report which is now before us. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) was surprised that hon. Members had not now set about discussing education as they did when the Bill was going through the House. I believe it is precisely because the Secretary of State did not wish the House to

249
be in a position to discuss what was happening in education that he failed so lamentably, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said, in not saying a word about this in his Report and explaining the considerations he took into account.
The Secretary of State talked about the increase in the number of teachers, the increase in salaries, extensions and expansions of further education services and he talked about the improvements in bursaries provisions. Each time he told us that these were taken into account in arriving at the global figure, but never at any point did he tell us what expenditure was to be incurred in giving effect to these expansions. The Minister of Housing and Local Government in his White Paper dealt with the services one by one. He gave estimates, not in money terms but generally speaking, of the number of people to be employed or assisted in the Heath Service and so on. He gave figures to show how the Service was going over the years. One could easily calculate from that what would be the increase with the rise in current prices. The Secretary of State did not endeavour to do that in his White Paper, nor in his speech.
The hon. Member for Pollok, the only hon. Member who found anything to quarrel with in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central, underlined more effectively than any other hon. Member the aptness of the speech of my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Pollok, in his flight of fancy this afternoon, described the Tory approach to education. He said, "Our approach is the approach to an expanding education to meet the needs of our people in the future, to develop technical education and to improve secondary education" He foresaw a reduction in the size of classes and the recruitment of new highly skilled teachers ad infinitum.
Mr. Rankin: It is the pantomime season.
Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend is correct it is the pantomime season.
The hon. Member for Pollok said that all these points were taken care of in the White Paper which reports the increase in local government expenditure in respect of the relevant services. But what do we find? The estimated cost of the education
250
service for 1959–60 is £69,672,000. For 1960–61, when the White Paper is to become effective, the estimated expenditure is £72,574,000. That is an increase in respect of this service of a little less than 5 per cent. When he takes into account the increasing cost of services, does the hon. Member for Pollok think that we shall even be holding our own if we increase our expenditure by only 5 per cent.? He said that he wanted an expensive education service. Does he think that he will get this great, new, expanding and expensive service out of an increase of less than 5 per cent. in the estimated expenditure on it?
He knows we shall get nothing of the kind. When we are discussing a serious matter of this kind—and the future educational service of Scotland is a serious matter—it is not good enough for an hon. Member as well informed as he is to allow his imagination to run away with him in the way he did this afternoon and to say, "The White Paper shows how much we care about education." He could have remembered that the Convenor of the Education Committee in Glasgow, part of which city he has the honour to represent, made a speech the other day in which he forecast that even in secondary schools there is a possibility of their being driven to part-time education in Glasgow through want of teachers.
The hon. Member drew a picture of an expanding, expensive service which would secure the well-being of our country in the future. It is a great pity that we have not the data in front of us this afternoon to allow us to make a proper examination of the extent to which our education services could possibly be extended in terms of the total figures written into the General Grant Order.
It is for the same reason that we cannot, with profit to ourselves and the people we represent, go into the many other services in detail. We have not been given the details by the Minister either in his White Paper or in his speech. We have therefore not been able to discuss with the local authorities in our constituencies what is their estimate of what they will spend on the different services in the next few years, and we have not been able to relate one with the other in order to see whether adequate provision is being made for the extension of the services which are so essential in our community.

251
The right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) said that we were encouraging extravagance when we talked about our expanding services, but I did not think the right hon. Gentleman had understood my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central at all. In any case, he was surely given the answer by the hon. Member for Pollok. It is no extravagance, it is not wasteful expenditure, to extend some of these services, such as education, public health and a great many other services covered by this document. Unfortunately, we have not all the necessary information available to us.
Dealing with the general point—and I believe that the general point is the only one with which we can profitably deal in the debate—I would point out that the local authorities of Scotland were asked to make their estimates of expenditure at a time when we were still fighting inflation and against the background of a whole series of circulars sent out by the Secretary of State. May I refer to the circulars?
On 17th February, 1956, a circular was issued—I have a copy here—placing a virtual embargo on all capital projects other than those relating to public health and to public safety. That was a virtual embargo.
Mr. Willis: It included education.
Mr. Fraser: As my hon. Friend says, it included education. On 10th October, 1956—after the Election of 1955—a further circular was issued continuing this restriction on capital expenditure until further notice.
May I move forward to January of this year, when we were getting ready for the general grant? A circular was issued inviting all local authorities to ensure that all possible economies were achieved both in current expenditure and in the budget for 1958–59. That is this budget. All possible economies had to be effected in building up their expenditure to be met out of the current budget. On 12th June, in case local authorities had forgotten, a circular was sent out mentioning the changes in the administrative procedure and repeating the Government policy that the utmost economy in public expenditure, both on capital and on revenue account, was to be maintained.
252
It was in that atmosphere and against that background this summer that local authorities made their estimate of expenditure in the year 1959–60 and the year 1960–61. They could do it only at the then ruling prices and against the background of Government policy. I have consulted as many local authority people as I could possibly consult over the weekend, since we received this General Grant Order, and I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the information which I have been given is that if they could have made their estimate of expenditure now, since recent relaxations and against the background of recent pronouncements, they would have made very different estimates from those which they made last summer.
I think it worth mentioning at this point that on 17th November, after the local authority consultations had been completed about the General Grant Order, Circular No. 9329 was issued. I have a copy of it here. It invited local authorities to carry out in the next twelve months capital expenditure which would otherwise have been incurred later. Is it not a little dishonest for the Government, a bit of sharp practice, to have taken figures of estimated expenditure from the local authorities when they were under this injunction to curtail, restrict and restrain and then, when the estimates have been made in that atmosphere and against that background, to publish the General Grant Order for 1958–59 and for 1960–61; and then to say to the local authorities, "There are things which you wanted to do in 1960–61, but you can do them now in 1959 because you will pay for it yourselves"? That is exactly the position.
The official, who obviously must be nameless, who sent me some of the documents which I have before me, has concluded his report to me in these words:
"It may only be coincidence but perhaps there is significance in the fact that this change of direction by the Government comes at a time when the whole financial relationship between the Government and local authorities has altered."
If the local authorities are to give effect to this relaxation, to this expansion in local government services that is now being encouraged, they will have to meet the whole cost from local rates. They will not get any assistance from the central Government.

253
This Government—this Tory Government, not some other Government—have been doing their utmost in the last three years to keep down public expenditure—I have mentioned the relevant circulars—and, in particular, to keep down the expenditure incurred by local authorities. Notwithstanding that attempt, we find that local authority expenditure has increased more year by year than it is now estimated to increase when we have embarked on a policy of expansion. That is a statement of fact, and if any right hon. or hon. Member opposite wishes to contradict that, I hope he will.
I repeat: the increase in local government expenditure has been greater during the restrictionist period than it is anticipated to be in these next years when local authorities are to be encouraged to incur new capital expenditure. The annual charges on the loans for the provision of new schools and other buildings are a small item compared with the increase in current expenditure on the running of the service, but apparently in his General Grant Order the Secretary of State has not been able to allow for any of this expansion at all.
This brings us back to the debates we had on the Bill. This General Grant Order demonstrates how right we were when this change in the law was being made to point out that when we got a General Grant Order the Secretary of State would succeed in limiting the share of he cost to be borne by the Exchequer, and then in encouraging local authorities to go ahead expanding their services as they would—knowing that they would not be able to do so because of the burden on local taxation.
From time to time, right hon. and hon. Members opposite, including the Secretary of State, boast in public speeches of the way in which this Government have succeeded in reducing central taxation. The real fact is that far more money is raised in central taxation by this Government than was raised by their predecessors in 1951. However, if we take into account the change in the value of money—and it has changed considerably under this Government—they may now be taking a slightly lower proportion of people's earnings than was taken in 1951, but what they cannot deny is that the local authorities, in local rates, take a
254
bigger share of people's earnings today than was taken in 1951.
That is true of the most Tory authority; Edinburgh, with a Tory Government at Westminster, has doubled its rates in the last seven years. The reason is that in recent years the Government have gradually transferred burdens from the taxpayer to the ratepayer. That is a retrograde step. With the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I believe that our rating system is the most regressive form of taxation we have; and that it is wrong that we should be easing the burden on the taxpayer and putting an additional burden on the ratepayer.
That is undoubtedly what is happening under this General Grant Order. If the local authorities take the advice given to them in the most recent of the Secretary of State's circulars, that issued on 17th November, there is not a shadow of doubt that they will increase expenditure on relevant services, and the Secretary of State, who under the specific grants legislation some years ago—and, indeed, until now—would have been required to find 25 per cent., 50 per cent., 60 per cent., of the increased cost, will not meet any part of the increase at all. This expansion above that which the local authorities could reasonably estimate when they were acting against the background of restriction and restraint, will have to be met 100 per cent. out of the rates, which is the most regressive form of taxation.
For those reasons, this General Grant Order is very wrong. It is also very wrong that we should be forced into having this debate at all when we have not sufficient information before us. I had thought of quoting from two or three of the several documents that we have before us in order to show how inept they were. I have not done so, but I think that the case is made. We have not sufficient information—the local authorities are still in the dark—and the Secretary of State is getting away with it by not making the Report that the Act says that he ought to make, and by not explaining in detail today the considerations that led him to produce the overall figures set out in the White Paper and in this Order.
The Joint Under-Secretary may fill in some of the gaps left by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but even if he does

255
so, I hope that the House and the country will note that it is too late to give the information immediately before the House is asked to approve the Order. The information ought not only to have been made available in time to enable hon. Members to make up their minds, but should have been made available to Scottish local authorities so that hon. Members could have discussed it with them and, in the light of those discussions, have decided whether or not the General Grant Order was adequate to the needs of the day.
5.58 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon-Browne): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), like his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and others, has complained about the form of the White Paper. As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, we have done this in our own way in Scotland; in a way that we thought would be best and most convenient for the House. I am sorry that hon. Members opposite do not agree with this. My own view is that this should have been a debate on the general grant, not on particular grants, and that is how we thought hon. Members opposite would wish to conduct this debate.
I must take up one thing that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central said. I was rather disappointed in him. So weak was his case that he had to fall back on misreading paragraph 17 of the original White Paper—and he knew that he was misreading it. He knows quite well that that paragraph, headed "Reduction in Grant," refers to reduction in grant consequent on rerating. In the event, what has happened is that the grants have not been reduced but increased.
He then complained, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, that the increase was less than in previous years. Surely he realises that prices have stabilised—
Mr. T. Fraser: Have they?
Mr. Browne: Certainly—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—and those cries of alarm make it quite clear to me that right hon. and hon. Members opposite—and here I include the hon. Member for
256
Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton)—have not got the position perfectly clear.
The Act provides, in Section 2 (2):
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that during any grant period any unforeseen increase has taken place in the level of prices, costs or remuneration"—
and so forth, he may issue a new order.
Mr. Hamilton: He may.
Mr. Browne: Yes; but my right hon. Friend has so far scrupulously carried out the provisions of the Act, as I imagine any Secretary of State in any Government would be expected to carry out what he was instructed to do by Statute.
The hon. Member for Hamilton made a case for the expansion of the education estimates, saying that they were too low. He said that it was just a meagre pittance of 5 per cent., and this really was not in keeping with what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) had said about Tory policy. The hon. Gentleman may have his own opinion, but he missed one point. This expansion in the estimates is in the loan charges, and, of course, loan charges which are small can hide a very great amount of capital expenditure.
The hon. Member for Hamilton and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, regretted that we had given no detailed figures for this increase. It might be as well to make clear now that these figures cannot be published. The new grant is a general grant, not a bundle of specific grants.
Mr. Willis: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves education, will he answer the specific question I asked—
Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows that before I finish I shall try to answer every point which was raised. I am doing my best.
It would be contrary to the whole intention of the grant if it were possible to say that £X had been provided for, let us say, health services, £Y for fire services, and so on.
Mr. Willis: Why?
Mr. Browne: The essence of the scheme—this is why—is that local authorities are free to spend the general grant

257
as they wish, and it would be very wrong for the Government to tie strings to it by relating specific parts of the general grant to specific services. The nearest we have thought it right to go in the way of information is set out at the top of page 3 of the White Paper.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central Thought he had a very good point when he said, quite rightly, that the acid test was the percentage of grant in relevant expenditure. My right hon. Friend told him that, from 1959 to 1961, the percentage of grant in relevant expenditure had not suffered but had risen, the percentage being 61·4, 61·7, 61·9—
Mr. T. Fraser: Estimated expenditure.
Mr. Browne: All right estimated expenditure—up to 62 per cent. That is not gradually transferring the burden from the taxpayer to the ratepayer, as the hon. Member for Hamilton suggested. It is relieving the ratepayer of a burden.
Mr. Fraser: Ask Edinburgh.
Mr. Browne: The same two hon. Gentlemen asked if the figures were submitted in a climate of reduction or expansion. First of all, the local authorities submitted the figures. They were then revised by my right hon. Friend in a climate of reasonable expansion.
Mr. Fraser: When?
Mr. Browne: After he received the figures of the estimates from local authorities. I cannot give the exact dates.
Mr. Fraser: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I have taken the trouble to inform myself by consulting people in local authorities. They tell me that their estimates were made in the climate of restriction, and I want to know, if it is said that they were told that they could do it in a climate of moderate expansion, when they were so told.
Mr. Browne: I am doing my best to answer the hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me to continue. I understand now that they were advised in October, in a climate of reasonable expansion.
The revisions were sent back to the local authorities, in the fullest detail, chapter and verse being given for every item where any of their figures were varied. Here, I may say that many of them were varied more up than down.
258
The fullest details were given. I then had the pleasure of meeting the local authorities myself, and we discussed every variation in their estimates, item by item.
The hon. Member for Hamilton drew attention to the circular of 17th November, which invited local authorities to bring expenditure planned for later years forward into 1958–59 and 1959–60. There has been no general relaxation of capital investment by the local authorities. What the circular did was to ask them to plan to bring expenditure forward. If account had been taken of this in the general grant, it might have increased the grant for 1959–60 by a very little at the expense of the grant for 1960–61. Further, I would point out that the relaxation circular, of course, covers a far wider field than the relevant services.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, who always reads the papers very carefully, asked why paragraph 9 of the English Paper says that nothing is included for increases in prices, and our own Paper says that it is included. The real point is this. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Paper, he will see that the two go hand in hand, and that no provision was made for increases in prices that were not foreseen. In both countries, the increases in prices which were foreseen were allowed for.
Mr. McInnes: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Do I understand from that that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to instruct local authorities to effect economies in order to meet the rise in wages, prices, and things of that kind?
Mr. Browne: Really, if the hon. Gentleman will read Section 2 (2) of the Act—I have read it once already, and I shall not read it again—he will see that that is allowed for.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central asked about provision for mental health. We are awaiting the report of the Scottish Health Services Council, and we shall consider that and have discussions on it. It is unlikely that there will be a considerable increase of expenditure under that head. He asked about domestic help. The figures have been agreed and accepted by the local authorities. He asked about additional welfare centres for mothers and young children. Provision has been made for increases here

259
compared with what is likely to be provided during the year 1958–59; allowance has been made for an increase.
As regards traffic controls and road crossing patrols, the figures in the table in the White Paper were accepted by the local authorities as providing for reasonable development of these services.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), in a fighting speech, complained that 1,000 teachers were not enough, though he seemed to have some doubt about where we should find 1,000 teachers anyway.
Mr. Rankin: The thousand was not my figure. It was the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State.
Mr. Browne: All right. The Secretary of State gave round figures. The real estimate taken from the local authorities was 1,050 teachers. It rises from a figure in 1958–59 of 36,210, to 37,260 in 1960–61. Of this increase 680 will be employed in secondary schools. That figure, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, is based on what we believe can be achieved. Nothing will prevent the recruitment of more teachers if we can get them. That assurance I can give. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the figures I have given take account of the decision to grant indefinite deferment from National Service to virtually all trained teachers.
I cannot say much to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, West, because youth employment is not a relevant service. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for Govan asked how much would be spent by local authorities on educational building. The value of the work to be done during the period 1959–61 is expected to be £29 million, but only a small part of it is included in the £65 million programme under the White Paper, "Education in Scotland: The Next Step", which covers the period 1960–61 to 1964–65. Work on that programme will, of course, not commence until 1960–61.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) and the hon. Member for Hamilton complained that we had not complete figures, such as those available in England. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff asked, why buy a pig in a poke? Some pig, at £50 million!
260
The Scottish distribution formula is contained in the 1958 Act and has not been varied except for the very minor addition of sea miles, since the Scottish White Paper Cmd. 208 showed how a hypothetical general grant of £37 million would be distributed. All local authorities have to do, including my hon. Friend's local authority, is to estimate their share by adjusting the sum in the Appendix to the White Paper to take account of the fact that the revised total of general grant is not £37 million but £50 million.
Mr. Fraser: Cannot the hon. Gentleman tell us that the estimates he made originally ought not to be taken seriously and did not mean anything at all? Why give figures which are so hopelessly irrelevant?
Mr. Browne: This shows how right we were. It was £50 million, not £37 million.
Mr. Duthie: My hon. Friend will admit that this is based on a formula which had never been explained to me or to the House.
Mr. Browne: I will endeavour once more, as I think I have done at least six times before, to explain the position about the formula. There will be no losses in 1959–60, but there will be a gain for all local authorities of £750,000, for which we have had no words of congratulation from right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
That money will be shared according to the formula. In the first year there will be no gains or losses at all. In the second year, 1960–61, when there are gains and losses of 10 per cent., we will know the effects of revaluation and the effects, which worry my hon. Friend the Member for Banff so much, of any weakness in the distribution formula. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was also worried about that point. There will then be an opportunity between 1961 and 1962 to revise the distribution formula if this is thought to be necessary. Up to then, local authorities will have, first, one year with no gains or losses and, secondly, a year with gains and losses of 10 per cent. Then the formula can be looked at again.
Under the wise steering of my right hon. Friend, we have then to enact new arrangements about equalisation grant

261
and revise the method of calculation. There will be a Measure before the House which will be appropriate for the revision of the formula. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was worried about those with ill luck. We can have another look at it before too much damage is done.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East wondered whether the amount allowed in the general grant in respect of compulsory acquisition was sufficient. Some of the figures which the hon. Member quoted were in respect of housing and roads, which are not relevant expenditure.
Mr. Willis: I agree at once that some of the figures I quoted were not relevant expenditure. The figure given by the Secretary of State was an increase of over £300,000. I deducted from that an expected increase of £125,000 or £150,000 for housing, which still leaves £150,000 as compared with £20,000 in the White Paper.
Mr. Browne: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman thinking that there is confusion. The answer is the same as the one I gave to the hon. Member for Hamilton.
Mr. Willis: What is the answer?
Mr. Browne: I shall give the answer. The grant is on loan charges on expenditure, and, if the hon. Member cares to work it out in detail, he will find that the grant is very generous indeed.
Mr. Willis: It does not matter whether the additional expenditure is incurred on loan charges or not. The figure of cost given by the Secretary of State was £300,000. Now it has been reduced to £20,000 in the White Paper. We ought to have an explanation. The matter cannot be brushed off like this.
Mr. Browne: I thought that the hon. Member understood the position better than that. If one buys something, one borrows money to pay for it. If one borrows money to pay for it, one has to pay interest and repay the money, and if one does this, the taxpayer makes a contribution to the ratepayer. That contribution from the taxpayer will be £20,000 in the first year and £40,000 in the second year. That allows for a great deal of capital expenditure.
262
The main point of the debate, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton concerns the broad principle of the extent of Government assistance from the taxpayer to the ratepayer. Both sides of the House agree that the object of the exercise is to provide the best possible growth in services and to provide the most efficient service possible. It is a matter of nice judgment. It does not matter whether we pay as taxpayers or ratepayers, because they are really one and the same person. If the taxpayer paid too little, rates would go sky high and there would be too little central control. We cannot afford to allow that to happen. If, on the other hand, the taxpayer pays too much, the local authorities become mere cyphers under the dictatorship of bureaucracy. I believe that we have struck the right balance. The degree of financial help which we are giving by the Order is about right, although I shall have a word or two to say about the present degree of central direction.
With regard to financial help, Section 2 (2) deals with any unforeseen increase. For the first time we are giving local authorities a bag of gold. What were the Opposition's prognostications on this point? The Opposition said that this was a Treasury device, that we were letting local authorities down and that we would give local authorities less subsidy. This has not been proved by events. We are giving local authorities greater financial independence.
Let us consider the benefits of this greater financial independence. We must agree that room for manoeuvre is not unlimited. A combination of good sense and of a degree of statutory obligation is required. My right hon. Friend has power to make regulations and in the last resort he has power to reduce the grant. We do not want to make too much of that. Similar powers over the equalisation grant have been available for many years, but they have never been used. What is the position now? If a local authority has a guinea to spend, it says, "If we spend it on health we shall get two guineas' worth of work; if we spend it on the fire services we shall get 28s. worth of work; and if we spend it on non-grant aided services, we shall get only one guinea's worth of work." Under the general grant, what will be the tendency? It will be to spend

263
money in the best interests of the ratepayers and to put first things first and not feel that by not spending money on a heavily grant-aided service they are missing the grant bus, so to speak.
I now come to the point about which little has been said by hon. Members opposite—and quite rightly, because they do not agree with it. Central dictation by central Departments has gone too far. The general grant is a major loosening of control. I was astonished that all local authorities opposed it. I wonder why? Perhaps it is that the local authorities like somebody else to do their thinking for them and then to put the blame on someone else when things go wrong. Perhaps these prisoners of Socialist freedom have come to love their chains.
I was worried during the course of the Bill about the possibility of a breakdown in relations between central and local government. We are used to opposition from some local authorities to our Bills, but this was a united opposition, except for Edinburgh.
Mr. McInnes: The Joint Under-Secretary said that local authorities do not think for themselves, but yet they can unite in opposition. How does he reconcile that statement?
Mr. Browne: I gave the reason. In any case, I am very pleased indeed that after our last meeting the good relationship with, and the faith that the local authorities have in, central Government has been restored. Nothing that I have heard today has altered that opinion.
We have done more than that in the general grant. By administrative and legislative means, we have swept away a host of minor controls and irritations. We have done a great deal to free the local authorities from the shackles of central Government. Each item is small in itself, but the cumulative effect is very large.
We cannot hope in one operation to take the local authorities out of the deep waters of Socialist theory in which since the war they have been swept ever further from the shore. By this Measure, we have for the first time turned the tide and the local authorities can feel the ground under their feet. I firmly believe—[Interruption.]—I know that hon. Members opposite do not like it—that this Measure will do more than any single
264
thing the Government have done to instil fresh vigour into local public life and into the understanding and practice of democracy without which the nation cannot long survive. By this Order, and by the Act under which it was laid, we have been fair, even generous, to the local authorities and have made possible those desirable ends that we set out to achieve in the original White Paper.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the General Grant (Scotland) Order, 1958, dated 20th November, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONS
6.22 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Commission Regulations, 1958, dated 21st November, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.
We now come south of the Border. These Regulations are for the guidance of the two Local Government Commissions, one for England and one for Wales. The Local Government Commission for England has already been appointed and, to judge by all the comments which I have heard or read, its composition has given general satisfaction. I hope soon to announce the members of the Local Government Commission for Wales, which has a much less prolonged task before it. I am sure it is right that the Commissions should receive from Parliament any guidance that they need before the New Year, when they will be getting down to the business of the actual reviews.
There has been consultation with the local authority associations during the drafting of these Regulations, and the advice of the associations has led to the incorporation of a number of useful improvements. The Regulations echo some points of the Regulations that were approved by Parliament in 1945 for the old Local Government Boundary Commission. Where there are differences, the reason can usually be found in the difference between the 1958 Act and the 1945

265
Act, under which the old Boundary Commission functioned.
In 1945, it was a question of a Commission that was expected to be a permanent reviewing body presenting orders direct to Parliament, whereas the present Commissions are to submit proposals to the Minister. In addition, the task of the earlier Commission extended to the boundaries and status of local authorities of all kinds throughout the country. Furthermore, its procedure was not so closely prescribed in the Act. The underlying spirit, of course, is the same in both cases. In both cases it is a question of guidance.
The Commissions must be free, provided they have taken into account all the matters prescribed in the Regulations, to formulate their own proposals in relation to each particular case. Indeed, these Regulations do not essay to give the Commissions detailed guidance in every one of the possible situations that may arise. There will certainly be cases where, subject to the general guidance of the Regulations, matters are best left to the words of the Act and to the commonsense of the Commissions.
I expect that the House would like me to go briefly through the various Regulations. The first point that the House may care to note is the reference in the latter part of Regulation 2 to "review areas" The five "special review areas" are defined in the Third Schedule to the Act—although they can be added to by Order under Section 17 of the Act, and can be varied by Order under Section 25. Outside the special review areas, the Act provides that the Commissions must divide up England or Wales, as the case may be, into such areas as they think fit—subject to a ministerial power of direction, which, I hope, will never need to be used.
What is envisaged is that in England, and possibly also in Wales, these areas will usually be quite sizeable ones, each covering two or more geographical counties. The Commission for England is expected to announce by about the end of this year which such areas, in addition to any special review area, it proposes to deal with first.
Regulation 3 reminds the Commissions that, even though their review area may be a large one, they must not ignore the relationship between the local govern-
266
ment problems inside it and those of neighbouring areas. It reminds the Commissions, also, that the aim must be local government units which are both effective and convenient, individually and collectively.
Regulation 4 stresses the importance of looking to the future, too, and not solely at the existing circumstances. Local government serves needs and has problems which never stand still, and the Commissions must not look solely at the existing point in time. This consideration was raised on several occasions during the passage of the Act and I promised that note would be taken of it.
Regulations 5 and 6 provide some kind of measuring rod with which the Commissions can help themselves in judging whether any existing or contemplated organisation of local government in any review area is or is not "effective and convenient," those being the criteria laid down in the Act. They are not bound to apply only the criteria mentioned in these two Regulations. What they are required to do is to include among the factors which they take into account these points in the two Regulations.
In Regulation 7 the House will recognise some old favourites—the so-called nine factors, which were prescribed for the old Boundary Commission in 1945 in almost identical terms. They have simply been brought up to date in the light of present day circumstances. Regulations 8 to 10 touch on the difficult question of the creation of new county boroughs. These Regulations have been carefully worded. I am not anxious to put any gloss on them. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will gladly answer any questions that may arise.
Regulation 11 deals with extensions by existing or proposed county boroughs into the areas of neighbouring county districts. Its effect is intended to be that normally—I say "normally" although, of course, there may be exceptions, which the Commissions will have to justify—a county borough should not be extended to take in a neighbouring area merely because that area is neighbouring. There must be a real link, or there must be at least a prospect of a real link. Furthermore, the proposed added area should normally be an urban area, or one that is likely to become urban. After all, we are

267
dealing with big towns—the county boroughs.
This Regulation also reminds all concerned, the Commission and the local authorities, that when a prospect of development is claimed to exist the claim will have much more weight if it can be shown to be consonant with a current development plan or current planning permission. The Commission will have to form its own judgment of development prospects, but it is not itself a planning authority, nor has it any appellate jurisdiction in planning matters.
The Commission for England is reminded by Regulation 12 to consider, as soon as practicable after the beginning of a special review of an area, whether there is need for any adjustment to the territorial scope of the special review. That will be the occasion for any anxious local authorities in the special review area, or on the fringe of it, to put a case if they so wish—it is entirely at their discretion—for inclusion in the area or for exclusion from it. That applies only to the Local Government Commission for England, because it will be remembered that in the passage of the Act through Committee we provided that special review areas could not be created in Wales.
Regulation 13 reminds the Commission of the main reasons why these special review areas are singled out for special treatment in the Act. When it is examining an area of that character, the Commission must ask itself whether the area possesses, in fact, such features as to justify the use of the special proposal-making powers which the Act provides.
Regulation 14 ought to allay the anxieties of those who harbour a fear lest a county half inside a special review area and half outside it might find itself reviewed in two completely separate operations. In practice, what is expected is that when the Commission comes to review a special review area, about the same time it will deal with another review area including the surrounding county areas. Its proposals for the two review areas would then be arrived at together.
Regulation 15 is chiefly of importance in the possible case where the Commission is considering leaving the pattern in a
268
special review area much as it is now, except for some adjustments of boundaries and amalgamations of small units. This Regulation will remind the Commission of the fact that the range of functions available for exercise by county districts will depend, among other things, upon their size. Broadly speaking, the bigger the county district the greater its chances of adding to its responsibilities by getting delegated powers from the county.
Regulation 16 is addressed to the possible alternative case where the Commission is considering dividing a special review area, or part of it, into county boroughs, including possibly some new ones. That solution, which, of course, would eliminate all county districts in that area or part of an area, would presumably be adopted only where it was clear that there were at present too many different authorities for the good local government health of the area. It seems reasonable, therefore, in such a case, that a Commission should be invited to think twice before proposing to divide the area among too many separate authorities again.
Regulation 17 is concerned with a third alternative which the Commission can propose—that is, the special county with a special distribution of functions between county and districts. The aim is to avoid a structure that is either too top-heavy or too bottom-heavy.
Regulation 18 rounds off these references to these three alternative possibilities of change in a special review area by inviting the Commission's attention to its power to appoint joint boards. That power may in some cases assist the Commission in coming to its choice, and, after it has come to its choice, in working out the best detailed proposals.
Regulations 19 to 22 are concerned solely with matters of procedure and are self-explanatory.
These Regulations before us are not necessarily final. They can be amended in the light of subsequent experience, if need is shown, but I invite the House to endorse them as they are and to send them on with the good wishes of Parliament to the two Commissions in their difficult and responsible tasks.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. G. Lindgren: I am sure that the House will be obliged

269
to the Minister for having given his detailed explanation of these Regulations. I take it that we are not here this evening to discuss whether or not the Regulations are the best method by which the Commissions can deal with this problem. We have had hours of discussion in Cornmittee, on Report and Third Reading and the Minister has the authority of the House for the Regulations. Therefore, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends do not propose to contest them.
There are, however, one or two points arising from the Regulations with which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal when he replies to the debate. First, the Minister quite fairly pointed out that there is a difference between the operation of the Commissions under the Local Government Act, 1958, and their operation under the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act, 1945. As the Minister said, under the 1945 Act the Boundary Commission made its report and recommendations direct to Parliament. In this instance, the Commission's report and recommendations are made to the Minister. He considers them and makes an Order to be placed before Parliament. The Minister's Order, following the Commissions' reports, may have no relationship at all to the factors in the Commissions' reports.
The Minister can vary the report, he can act on the Regulations or modify them, or he can make no report at all within the light of his desires following the report. What is not clear to me—it may be in the Act, but I could not find it when I looked this afternoon—is whether there is any way by which the Minister is obliged to place before the House the report and recommendations of the Local Government Commission. Therefore I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether or not, after 10 reports have been made to the Minister and he has considered them, the House will have the opportunity of seeing the report and recommendations of the Local Government Commission as well as the Order which the Minister proposes to make following that report.
Regulation 22 gives the Minister the power to give directions to the Local Government Commission during the course of its operations. It is my view that any such direction should at least be on general principles acceptable both
270
to the local authorities and to the House of Commons. After all, these Regulations are based upon authority given to the Minister in the 1958 Act. In preparing them, as the Minister has informed the House, he has consulted the local authorities and has made provision within them for suggestions made to him by local authorities during those negotiations. If, during the course of the Commission's work, the Minister gives directions, I would like to know what opportunity will be given to the House to know that the right hon. Gentleman has given such directions, and whether there will be any prior consultation with local authorities. It is important to keep to the general principle of consultation and to know that the Commission is being directed in accordance with the principle which has so far been accepted by the House and by the local authorities.
My only other point arises under Regulation 19. Here the Commission is rightly requested to keep the Minister informed of the programme of the reviews. Not only is the programme important, as the Minister said during his explanation, but equally important is the question of the timetable. We have a Commission for England to deal with special review areas and with the boundaries of counties and county boroughs. When does the Minister think that the report of the Commission is likely to be ready for presentation to him? What timetable has he arranged in his own Ministry?
At present, local government is in a state of uncertainty. Uncertainty at any time is not good for administration and it is particularly bad for local government. It may be that many local authorities are making excuses for not doing the things they should do. As an example, there are many counties where the revision of electoral divisions is long overdue because of changes in its population. The same applies in many county districts, but both counties and county districts are saying at present that they will not review their electoral divisions because some time there will be a general county review and they can deal with the change of boundaries of electoral divisions at the same time as they are considering the revision of local authority areas That is understandable, but it is

271
undesirable if the report of the Commission is to be presented to the Minister and acted upon by the Minister within a reasonable period.
I do not want to be pessimistic. I am generally optimistic, but in my view the work of the Local Government Commission is bound to take a considerable time. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary when his right hon. Friend estimates that he will receive the report of the Commission on the special review areas and on the county and county borough areas. We do not expect him to give actual dates, but it would help the local authorities to know whether, in introducing these Regulations, the Government believe it will be five, ten, fifteen or twenty years before we get the complete revision of our administrative areas. At the moment we only know that a task of this character must take a considerable time.
In the light of any information that the Minister may be able to give the House this evening local authorities will be able to undertake other duties which ought to be undertaken. If it is to take a long time we can go along normally doing the things that ought to be done and carry on the day to day administration which is being held up.
Apart from those general questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House are prepared to let the Minister have these Regulations. We wish the Local Government Commission well in its work, and equally we wish that its report will be speedy so that we may get the revision of the administrative areas of the country settled for some time to come.
6.48 p.m.
Mr. John M. Temple: I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about these Regulations and I endorse what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) about the essential quality of reasonable speed in setting about the tasks of the Local Government Commission.
I feel sure that local government administration in any services, and, in particular, education, is waiting upon the determination of the new boundaries. So I add my plea to my right hon. Friend to impress upon the Commission that reasonable speed will be of considerable
272
help throughout the country. I am speaking on these Regulations because I feel that I have a special responsibility, having advocated, during the Committee stage, of the Bill that my right hon. Friend should bring forward these instructions in the form of Regulations which have been welcomed by many local authorities.
I welcome one new feature which has emerged in the Regulations, namely, the reference to council members and also to the general public. This reference to council members and their ability to get to the places of administration of local government is an important new feature. We should do everything we can to encourage voluntary workers to play their part in local government. The low polls in local government elections are deplorable, and the reference to local council members and also to the general public will mean that both will know that the Commission is thinking of them during this reorganisation.
I have one point to put to the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with special review areas. It arises from Regulation 14. I welcome the fact that when a special review area within a county is being reviewed another special review area will be reviewed at the same time, up to the point of at least the "initial stages" of the second review being taken into consideration. I noticed that my right hon. Friend said that that would include surrounding county areas as well. Will it include the initial stages of the county review and the reviews of county boroughs within that county? When there are two special review areas, as in Cheshire, the reviewing commission must undertake its review on a zonal basis. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with that point.
I give a general welcome to the Commission and wish it every success in a task which is formidable. Its task may be made considerably easier if there are consultations at local level between the local authorities concerned in advance of the Commission's arrival. I believe that local authorities can achieve a great deal by starting these local consultations here and now. Knowing local conditions, councils will be in a position to suggest an outline of the new local government boundaries. That outline may not be acceptable, but at least it will be made in the knowledge of local conditions.

273
The Regulations offer local government an opportunity of reorganise which may not occur again in the lifetime of many councillors. The test of whether the review is to be successful will be what is best for the community. That must be the governing spirit and not what is best for an individual council.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. Tudor Watkins: Some hon. Members believe that the Regulations are marching orders for the Boundary Commission. However, that is not true for Wales because the Commission has not yet been appointed. I understand the Minister's difficulties. It may be that the House has placed on him a difficult burden in asking him to find people who can speak Welsh. It may be that another difficulty is that all the good local government men in Wales already belong to local government, so that it is difficult to find someone appropriate to appoint to the Commission.
Mr. H. Brooke: I share with the hon. Member the desire that the Commission will be quickly set up. I hope that I may be able to make an announcement before the House rises for the Recess. The hon. Member will recognise that some of the largest local government areas in Wales are those which may be affected by the Commission's recommendations. It would thus be invidious to appoint to the Commission some of the people who might otherwise have been obvious choices.
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about the composition of the Commission in the Regulations.
Mr. Watkins: I was saying that the Regulations are considered to be marching orders, but marching orders cannot be given to anybody who is still standing still. I leave it at that.
I hope that when it is appointed the Commission will have regard to Regulations 4, 5 and 6. Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate what guidance will be given in the circulars to local authorities? For instance, will they be asked to get in touch with the Commission, or will the Commission get in touch with individual authorities?
The Minister suggested that there might be two or three authorities who would come under one review. Authorities are
274
anxious to know which local authorities might be included in such arrangements. I am anxious to know in what way the Commission will proceed, whether it will start on the coast and work towards mid-Wales, or whether it will start in mid-Wales and work towards the coast.
The Regulations say that future as well as existing circumstances will be considered. I hope that that means that the depopulation of rural mid-Wales will be taken into account, so that in the new set-up some industrial areas will be tied to rural areas to help to increase rateable values of rural counties, thus combating depopulation of rural areas.
I agree about the importance of ease of travelling to administrative centres. In the Report of the 1948 Boundary Commission, there were four separate proposals for Brecon and Radnor. It is difficult to travel in that area, and I am glad that the importance of travel facilities has been emphasised. I do not want a repetition of what has occurred with the mid-Wales police authority, where three counties are involved and where the Commission may consider that it is undesirable that the chief constable should live in Newton, more than 100 miles from the biggest industrial centre.
I was glad to find that the nine factors are listed alphabetically, but I hope that the Commission will not think that that is an order of importance. Community of interest may be very important. especially where there is a Welsh community, or an English community, in Wales. I could detain the House for a very long time while selecting which is the most important of those nine factors.
The Minister will be aware of the adage which says that a false step is worse than standing still. I hope that this step for Wales will not give the Government the false idea that they can borrow ideas from the English Commission, which may work for weeks, and then compel Wales to follow suit. I am glad that the names of the members of the Welsh Commission are to be announced before the Christmas Recess.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. R. Moss: My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has pointed out that we are concerned not with the form of the instructions, but with their nature. In

275
that respect, the Minister has done a good job. He was right when he said that the Regulations did not pretend to give detailed instructions about every possible situation which could arise. If I refer to specific situations it is not because I object to the Regulations as a whole, but because I want to illustrate some of the problems which may arise when the Commission does its work.
I am pleased to see, in Regulation No. 3 the words:
"effective and convenient local government throughout the whole of the review area and not merely in individual areas of local government."
In addition, there are the important words:
"regard being had also to the circumstances and needs of related review areas."
This Regulation has to be taken in conjunction with Regulation 14, which was referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). I suspect that the hon. Member misread that Regulation, because it does not refer to a county being affected by two special review areas. It reads:
"Before finally formulating any proposals for a special review area which includes only part of an administrative county the Commission shall complete at least the initial stages of their review of any review area which includes another part of that county."
Mr. Temple: Regulation 2 (2) says that:
"'review area' means a special review area".
With due deference to the hon. Member, I think that I may be correct.
Mr. Moss: I am much obliged to the hon. Member; I think he probably is correct. In that case, the point that I want to make is that an administrative county which is affected by the review of a special review area is also, at the same time, affected by the ordinary reviews of local government areas. I thought that that was what the hon. Member was trying to say, but he obviously was not.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) did not complete the definition. He will find that a review area means
"a special review area … or, outside special review areas, any area for which a review is held by the Commission. …"
Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friend the Member for
276
Meriden (Mr. Moss) and the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) are both right.
Mr. Moss: I think that the hon. Member for the City of Chester will agree that that is a very nice solution, especially as we are getting near to Christmas.
Three counties in the West Midlands are affected—Warwickshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire—but the Parliamentary Secretary will know that in Warwickshire there is also the County Borough of Coventry, which may have its own boundaries altered to the disadvantage of Warwickshire. I would hope that if the parishes of Kingshurst and Castle Bromwich were included in a local government structure for the West Midlands conurbation, the Commission would also have to consider what might happen in reviewing the boundaries of the existing county borough in Warwickshire.
Mr. D. Howell: We must get this right. When my hon. Friend refers to the County Borough of Coventry and mentions the village of Kingshurst, I presume he means the County Borough of Birmingham, as Kingshurst is adjacent to Birmingham and not to Coventry.
Mr. Moss: No, I do not; I am pointing out that the Commission, in reviewing the West Midlands conurbation, may take out of the County of Warwick certain parts of the present administrative county. At the same time, the boundaries of the City of Coventry may be extended, also to the disadvantage of the county. I am not suggesting that that will happen, but the Commission will have to bear in mind all these possibilities.
A third possibility is that a change may be made which will affect two counties. The Borough of Tamworth is in the County of Stafford, while the adjacent areas are in the Tamworth rural district and the County of Warwick. A change may be made affecting the County of Warwick. I suggest that no change should be made at Kingshurst and Castle Bromwich, or at Tamworth or Coventry, in isolation. They should all be considered together because of their ultimate total effect upon the County of Warwick. It is obvious that no decisions can be made without considering a very wide area. Paragraph 21 of the White Paper.

277
"Areas and Status of Local Authorities in England and Wales" says:
"assessing the wider repercussions of proposed changes upon other authorities affected."
I now turn to Regulation 6, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for the City of Chester. This Regulation mentions
"the access of council members and the general public to their local administrative centres."
Travelling facilities, both within and between local government areas, are mentioned. Here again, it is obviously impossible to lay down regulations affecting particular cases. I represent three rural districts surrounded by a number of urban centres, namely, Solihull, Birmingham, Sutton Coldfield, Tamworth, Nuneaton, Bedworth, Coventry, and Kenilworth. They form a circle round my constituency, and routes tend to interconnect these urban centres and, in the case of Birmingham and Coventry, to converge upon them. What is left inside my constituency is rather a by-product of the fact that it is surrounded by centres of urban population.
Local authorities should not necessarily be regarded as inefficient because they are so placed. I find it extremely difficult to get from one part of my constituency to another. Rural areas have these transport problems, and they ought not to be compared in this respect with more highly developed places which may have better means of communication.
Regulation 11 (a) refers to special links which may exist between a local government structure and an area which is at present outside it, but which may possibly be included in it by the Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) smiles; he probably anticipates to what area I am referring. Links between these areas are bound to arise from mere proximity. In the case of Kingshurst, just outside the City of Birmingham, the obvious link is that the inhabitants have come from Birmingham while their relatives may still live inside the City.
There are other special links. Houses have been built in Kingshurst to provide homes for the overspill population of Birmingham; indeed, tenants of Kingshurst, living in the Meriden rural district, have been complaining to the City of
278
Birmingham Corporation about their rents, because that Corporation receives their rents. That is a special link, but it has arisen from past co-operation between a county district and a great city, in an attempt to find a solution to the overspill population problem. I do not think that special link should count against the Meriden rural district because it exists as a result of its co-operation with the City of Birmingham in the past.
I should like to refer to Regulation 11 (b), which deals in a general way with the areas which may develop into town areas. There is no mention of the fact that such development may be considered undesirable. It may be desirable and it may be policy to preserve the green belt. The City of Birmingham has expressed itself as being in favour of an extension of boundaries.
Although I attach no significance to that, it means that the City of Birmingham will advocate before the Commission an extension of its boundaries as a solution of its housing problem. This is a fringe extension and I should like to have seen in the Regulations something requiring the Commission to take note of the best means of preserving the green belt where it exists and pointing out to the Commission that that might best be done by leaving the county areas where they are at present.
The need to preserve the green belt should be one of the factors to be considered. Again, this is a particular circumstance, but it must apply to many areas in this country and I can find no reference to it. However, paragraph 32 of the White Paper, "Areas and Status of Local Authorities in England and Wales" states that a county borough wishing to extend its boundaries would have to show whether such extension was justified, that the area claimed was not excessive and what the consequences would be for the county or counties affected. The White Paper went on to say that the onus should be placed on the county borough to prove that the advantages to its own inhabitants would outweigh the disadvantages caused to the county or counties concerned. I can find no mention of that in these Regulations and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to say something about it when he sums up the debate.

279
The special review areas are, of course, narrowly defined. We dealt with all that in Committee. I got the impression in Committee that only slight adjustments were permitted. Section 25 (1) of the Local Government Act, which refers to these Regulations, enables the Minister to vary a special review area by Order; while Section 25 (2) of the Act enables the Commission to do so subject to negative control by the Minister within a period of two months. I take it that that is still the position, particularly as regards Section 25 (2), that only slight modifications are intended.
Regulation 13 (d) seems to me to be a little vague. It would seem to exclude overspill populations except in so far as overspill population problems might be resolved more successfully when considered by the exporting area as a whole. Regulation 5 would also seem to exclude overspill population problems. Dealing with the overspill population problem is one of the most important functions of local government. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could say how far it is possible for Regulation 18 to be applied to a solution of the overspill population problem so far as a special review area as a whole is concerned. Could a joint authority be set up to negotiate with other authorities for the reception of overspill population?
Regulation 6 brings in the access of council members and the general public to their local administrative centres. I find this difficult to understand. In rural districts, villages are often remote from administrative centres. Any right hon. Gentleman who thinks that houses constructed in one village in a rural district may help the inhabitants of another village in that rural district is wide of the mark. The English have a habit of not living in accordance with administrative convenience. I do not quite understand how this Regulation applies to the efficiency of rural district authorities. In my experience, it is always difficult to get to an administrative centre of a rural district from some other part of that district.
Finally, I refer to Regulation 7, which puts the nine principles in alphabetical order and the "Wishes of the inhabitants" last in alphabetical order. My own view is that the wishes of the inhabitants are extremely important in any
280
democratic society. I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the White Paper "Areas and Status of Local Authorities in England and Wales" paragraph 16, where reference is made to "local loyalties and civic pride" being a source of strength in local government. Apart from these few criticisms, I think that the Regulations generally are to be commended and I wish the right hon. Gentleman and the Local Government Commission success in their work.
7.20 p.m.
Mr. George Chetwynd: I welcome these Regulations because I believe they are an earnest that, at long last, the Government are getting on with the job of local government reform, and that the Commission is in a position to undertake its task. I understand that the Commission has already been in touch with different local authorities and requested them to make their representations, so that it may frame its programme and begin operations in the new year. I also welcome the personnel of the Commission. It is completely unbiassed and I think that it will face its problems in an objective way. I do not know whether in his original announcement the Minister mentioned all the members of the Commission, but if so, I suggest, in view of the scale of its operations, that two or three more members should be added to it.
I should like more information about the order of its work. In dealing with a special review area, automatically the Commission will have to take into account the effect on surrounding areas, adjacent counties and so on. For example, when the Commission comes to Tyneside to deal with the special review area there, obviously it will not be able to reach any satisfactory solution without taking into account the effect on both the County of Northumberland and the County of Durham. It cannot settle the problems of the County of Durham without taking into account the problems of Tees-side. It cannot settle that problem without considering the problem of North Yorkshire—and so on.
That will mean that the actual review area will be extremely large, and it will be a long time before anything is settled. I wonder, therefore, whether that is the kind of review area which the Commission will have in mind. If so, I suggest

281
that the Commission will need strengthening in order to bring these proceedings to a successful conclusion in anything like a reasonable time. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) was unduly pessimistic in referring to a period of ten to fifteen years, but if this be the kind of problem which has to be faced, he may well be right. My view is that we have waited long enough for a review to take place, and the sooner it can be carried out, the better.
I wish to know whether the Commission will be able to tackle a number of areas simultaneously, as the previous Commission was able. Will it be possible for the Commission to divide itself into small sub-committees which would receive evidence, and so on, and issue separate reports? Otherwise the rush of local authorities to get into the queue for priority will be great, and may lead to unnecessary unpleasantness.
Regulation 20, which deals with notices of reviews, specifies that there should be a period of not less than eight weeks before a review is entered upon. That is rather a long time. Most of these local authorities have been living with this question for a considerable period, and I am not sure that they would need as long as eight weeks to prepare their case, or to issue the local notices, or to mobilise public opinion. I hope that the period may be shortened.
The point was raised during the Report stage about the figure of 100,000 population being the minimum for considering the conversion of a non-county borough into a county borough. I am satisfied that the Minister has dealt with this matter effectively in Regulation 9. It meets all the criticisms which were made and is a very fair statement
Regulation 10 states:
"The Commission shall not in any case propose the constitution of a new county borough in an area forming part of one or more administrative counties unless they are satisfied …"
It seems clear that the Commission is free to take one part of a county from that county and put it into another county to make a new county borough. That was one of the stumbling blocks which confronted the old Commission. I trust
282
that my interpretation is correct, because this may affect my own constituency.
I hope it is not meant that the nine factors referred to in Regulation 7 will have to be taken into account in every case. Obviously, there are many areas where some of them will not apply and I hope that it will be sufficient if the Commission pays general regard to factors of that kind. Another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough which I wish to emphasise is the necessity to keep Parliament informed of the Commission's progress. The Commission has an obligation to keep the Minister informed of its programme of reviews, and I hope the Minister will consider it his duty to acquaint Parliament with whatever the Commission brings to his notice, either by arranging for a Question to be asked, or by making a statement, or in some other way. It is important that we should keep track of the work of the Commission so that we may know it is getting on with the job we intended it to do.
When reports are made to the Minister, as is laid down in the Regulations, it is essential that they should be printed and the public notified as well as hon. Members of this House, so that we may be aware of the decisions taken by the Minister and informed whether they are in line with recommendations made by the Commission or against them. It is my hope that the Commission will now be able to get on with its job and that we shall not have to wait too long for its recommendations.
7.26 p.m.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: Regulation 7 states:
"The following (placed in alphabetical order) are to be included among the factors taken into account by the Commission on the holding of a review."
Then there follow nine factors, which, I presume, are part of the wider considerations that the Commission will take into account from time to time regarding review areas.
Is the Minister trying to evolve a pattern of local government into which he will place the services administered by the local authorities; or is he proposing to attempt to fit a local government structure on to those services? This is a very important matter. We cannot juggle with the creation of boundaries

283
of one kind or another without taking account of the wide range of services which are vital to the country and to local authorities. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether one of the prime considerations will be the study of the services to be administered by local authorities. Otherwise, he may find that a structure of local government is created which is uneconomic when related to the services to be administered. These include education, the fire service, the health service, housing, libraries, licensing, the protection of the public, parks and open spaces, transport, sanitation, sewage disposal, street lighting, town and country planning and welfare services, all of which involve substantial expenditure on behalf of the State and the ratepayers.
Above all else we desire to see a wide variety of services administered by the local authorities in an efficient and effective manner with a minimum of expenditure. The Commission might not reach that objective if it is obsessed with the idea of creating a structure without any relation to the economic administration of these vital and important services.
The Commissioners will undoubtedly find themselves engaged in a very difficult problem. There is a great deal of parochialism in local government. Even a parish council fights for more powers. It is generally anti-county council and all for parish councils. We ought to try to overcome what appears to be a vested interest in this matter. I do not know whether these Regulations provide for that. It may be that they do. If so, I hope the Minister will tell us. In the restriction of boundaries of local authorities and the creation of various grades of local authority administration I should like to see, for instance, on the county councils a certain proportion of rural district councillors and urban district councillors, or members of non-county boroughs. We want a closer tie-up as between the lower and higher tiers.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether I am in order in saying this because I see you getting nearer and nearer to the edge of your seat. If the Commissioners are to succeed in their main purpose of creating a machine which is to function effectively and efficiently in the administration of the service the State entrusts to them, we must have a better under-
284
standing on the part of the parish councillor of the responsibilities of the county and vice versa. That, coupled with the most effective administration of the services fitted into the appropriate structure, will achieve the main purpose.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to expedite the work of the Commission and that without undue delay we shall receive its reports, because this is a long overdue measure. Despite all the difficulties the Commissioners undoubtedly will meet, the sooner they are able to bring to us a reformed structure of local government, bearing in mind the many other aspects of the problem already mentioned, the better it will be for local government.
7.34 p.m.
Mr. Denis Howell: I did not intend to take part in this debate until my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) spoke. On many occasions he and I have contested what should happen to the West Midlands conurbation. Probably we are not now so far apart as when we started this argument.
If my hon. Friend is right in saying that the wishes of the inhabitants should be the most important consideration, he will be placing his local authority in a difficult position when the residents on the Kingshurst Estate are asked to state their wishes. They come from Birmingham, live in Birmingham municipal houses and pay rates in Birmingham. There is not a very good service of buses and there is not much doubt where those residents' wishes lie. I urge caution upon my hon. Friend. I do not want to see him go from this House, but I am afraid that if the local government wishes of his constituents in that area are taken into consideration, that might make a large hole in his constituency, if not in his majority, and that I should not like to see.
I am perplexed, as I have been all through this business. I ought to say so again now, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) said that it will be ten or fifteen years before we reach finality in the matter and it would be a serious step to allow these Regulations to go without making the point I have made before, that I do not see how the Commission, under its terms of reference and these

285
Regulations, can produce satisfactory solutions to the problem which will confront it.
I am pleased to see Regulation 12. According to that, the first thing that the Commission has to do is to consider the special review areas and to tell the Minister whether it thinks that they are wide enough. I wanted to see something like that in the Act, although my efforts may not have been recognised as being in that direction. I do not see how the Commission can carry out Regulation 12 immediately. I do not see how it can tell the Minister that the West Midlands conurbation as defined in the Act is not large enough to do certain specific tasks laid down in the Regulations. It cannot do that at the beginning of its deliberations, because it has to take the evidence and look at the problems before it can reach such a conclusion.
I should be interested if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us how he envisages that Regulation 12 will work out in practice. I understand that the West Midlands conurbation will be one of the first to be reviewed. The question of overspill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden rightly mentioned as an important factor, is a question for every one of the authorities, with the exception of Warwickshire County Council. I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend on this. All the other local authorities are without land, they are built up and have terrific problems in housing the homeless and dealing with the movement of industry.
The Commission, under Regulation 11 (b) has to have regard to
"The question whether, if the area is not already built-up, the use of the land in accordance with the development plan or in the manner authorised by permission to develop land granted on application in that behalf is likely to lead to its development into such a continuation of a town area as is indicated in paragraph (a) within such period as the Commission think it right to consider in the circumstances of the particular case;".
That looks well on paper, but all of us know what is in these development plans. I know what is in the development plans of all the county councils adjacent to Birmingham. I am not blaming them for wanting to maintain a green belt. There is great force in that argument and in my view it is in the national interest that a green belt should not be gobbled up higgledy-piggledy by large towns.
286
I say that although it puts me on dangerous ground in Birmingham. It is a factor which has to be taken into consideration. If we add Regulation 11 (b) to Regulation 12 the combined effect is to say that the Local Government Commission cannot produce solutions to the problems in the area it is investigating, as that is a complete impossibility. The development plan says, "So far, no farther". There is to be no more building in those areas, but the problems of Staffordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire and all the considerations in Regulation 7 have to be taken into account, and they are impossible of solution.
I hope very much that when carrying out its duties under Regulation 12 the Commission will make an early assessment of the problems, the likelihood of the local authorities being able to produce a sensible solution to them, and will recommend to the Minister that he should extend the boundaries in accordance with the power that he has under the Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) made the very pertinent point that we cannot look at any of these areas in isolation. Whatever change is recommended in one area is bound to have an effect upon other areas. Those of us who do not want to see the boundaries of large towns widened, or the green belt violated, nevertheless realise that as the Regulations have been framed, unless the Commission uses its special power in Regulation 12, no solution to this problem will be found.
I said in Committee, and it can be repeated now, that although I am not anxious to see the boundaries of Birmingham extended, the Regulations and the Act virtually force the Birmingham City Council into a position in which it has to recommend boundary extensions to the city. No doubt under paragraph 11 the council will be giving evidence and recommending extensions of boundaries, part of which will have the effect of encroaching on the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and other hon. Members.
That is the almost inescapable position in which the Minister has put the City of Birmingham, and I hope even at this late hour we shall take advantage of the

287
one gate still left open—that of Regulation 12. I hope that when the Commission studies the facts and realises the effects of not offering a solution for the large towns in the existing conurbations it will take the sensible and practical course of coming to the Minister as quickly as possible and saying, "You must extend this area in the name of preserving the green belt, while, at the same time, bringing hope to the homeless, and you must redistribute industry on a sensible basis."
7.42 p.m.
Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I want, first, to join in the expression of good will which has been offered by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the Commissions, which are now embarking on a very difficult task. The Commissions have the job of doing what might be described as a tidying-up operation in most of England and Wales, but they have very great possibilities before them in any recommendations they make for the special review areas, where their powers are considerably greater in the making of recommendations than they are in the rest of the two countries.
I feel that out of the special review areas and the regulations about them, and out of subsequent action taken in the House, we may see a new form of local government growing up—a form which we have never seen before—and that for this reason the effect will eventually spread over areas much wider than the special review areas.
May I comment on one or two Regulations, particularly Regulation 7, which has been mentioned by the Minister and by other hon. Members, and the nine principles which are set out there. Paragraph (g) refers to the
"Record of administration of the local authorities concerned "
which the Commission has to take into account when it starts on its work in any area. I think that it can rightly be claimed for the vast majority of local authorities, whether large or small, county borough or county council, and even the smallest parish council, that on the whole the records of administration are good, irrespective of the political party controlling them and whether there is no political influence on them at all.
While it is right, therefore, that this provision should be included, it should
288
not be the overriding consideration in the mind of the Commission when looking into this matter, because, broadly, if this is to be one of the principal criteria, nearly all authorities will be able to establish a case for nothing very much being done.
Paragraph (i) refers to the "wishes of the inhabitants". It is easy to say that the Commission, or for that matter anyone else, should take into account the wishes of the inhabitants of an area. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) said that he thought this one of the most important provisions, and he was unhappy that, alphabetically, it came at the end of the list. I agree that it is important to take account of the wishes of the inhabitants, but, at the same time, I am not quite sure how the Commission will discover those wishes. All too often the wishes of the inhabitants as interpreted by the members of the local authority for the area are not necessarily any of the wishes and ideas which the inhabitants themselves have.
I am all in favour of accepting the fact that the elected representatives on a local authority are given the responsibility of interpreting the wishes of the inhabitants in respect of the local government of that area, but when those same representatives appear before the Commission or any other body and toll that Commission or other body what are the wishes of the inhabitants about the type of local authority they should have—whether there should be any change in the boundaries, for instance—I regret to say that in the vast majority of cases those representatives have far too many vested interests individually to be able properly to express the views of the inhabitants who, on other matters, they quite adequately represent.
On the other hand, I also feel that other bodies, organisations and individuals appearing before Commissions of this nature will probably not represent the wishes of the inhabitants as a whole, but will represent certain specific interests among the inhabitants. While I agree that this provision should be included in the Regulations, and while I am pleased to see it there, I hope that the Commission will not accept without a great deal of understanding the views which are brought forward to it by a great many bodies, both local authorities and others, which are not necessarily the wishes of

289
the inhabitants as a whole but often represent the wishes of a small group of inhabitants, some of whom, unfortunately, have a vested interest in the continuance of the status quo or in the continuance of the present situation without too many alterations.
Perhaps I may now turn to Regulation 8. The same point is mentioned in Regulation 11 (b). These are points for the Commission when proposing the creation of new county boroughs. The Commission is to
"take into account any increase or decrease of population"
and the operative words are,
"within such period as they think it right to consider in the circumstances of the particular case".
I can imagine some local authorities coming to the Commission and stating that in about fifteen or twenty years' time they expect to have a population of 110,00, despite the fact that they now have only 75,000, and I can see them trying to substantiate a case for county borough status on a forward look covering a very long period. No specific period of years which the Commission should take into account is mentioned in the Regulations, and I do not for one minute think that it would be possible to mention a specific period in the Regulations, but I express the hope that, when operating, the Commission will bear in mind that—as I interpret other Sections of the Act—in county reviews it is expected to look forward only about ten years, because after ten years, if he so desires and thinks necessary, the Minister can ask the county to carry out another review.
I think that about ten years is the maximum forward look which the Commission ought to take when considering the various points mentioned in Regulation 8 and Regulation 11 (b). It would be dangerous to look very much further forward than that, unless the circumstances are particularly exceptional in any area, although I fully realise the difficulty about prescribing the number of years in the Regulations.
Regulation 11 (b) shows some of the dangers of county borough extensions. There are far too many county boroughs—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell)
290
has already given some indication of this—who are waiting for the opportunity to get their hands on neighbouring bits of land which often have been designated as green belt. I think it is essential for the Commission to bear in mind that all too often, when a county borough wants to absorb a neighbouring area, its main reason for doing so is to enable it to build.
I am glad that my hon. Friend reminded the Commission that in looking at any such question it should bear in mind whether the land has been designated for building, for green belt or for any other purposes. At the same time, I have a certain amount of sympathy with my hon. Friend, who mentioned the problem in the area surrounding Birmingham, where a vast amount of land is scheduled as not being fit or suitable for building operations.
Regulation 12 has caused some discussion between my hon. Friends. I am exceedingly pleased that the Minister has drawn the Commission's attention to the fact that its first job should be to look at the question of its area. I place a completely different interpretation on Section 25 (1) to that placed on it by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, who seemed to think that these would be only slight alterations. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr on this and I hope that in looking at these special review areas the Commission will realise that they are far too tightly drawn. I hope that it will then go to the Minister with proposals for extending the areas. I hope that if and when he receives any such proposals as those, the Minister will be prepared, without questioning too much at that stage, to accede to any such request made to him by the Commission.
All that the right hon. Gentleman is really doing is to extend the area to be considered in a special review, and does not then commit himself to any particular form of local government organisation in the extended area. As the Commission has been given this responsibility, I hope that if it asks the Minister for action under Section 25 (1) the right hon. Gentleman will accede to the request, realising, as I say, that he is not then committing himself to doing more than give the Commission the power to look at a wider area in a special review.

291
Regulations 15 to 18 give some of the alternative proposals that the Commission can recommend for the special review areas. Here I have to refer back, of course, to Regulation 7 about which the Minister has, quite rightly, I think, gone to some pains to point out that the various factors are in alphabetical order, and do not imply that he considers the first in the list to be more important than the last.
I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to assure us that the fact that the items mentioned in Regulations 15 to 18 are in a particular order does not imply ministerial preference for any one of them over the others. In fact, if I thought that they were placed in some sort of preferential order I could say a good deal about the part played by some of them. It is, perhaps, a pity that the Minister could not have put them in alphabetical order, as has been done with the nine factors in Regulation 7.
I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden about Regulation 20, which instructs the Commission to give a local authority eight weeks' notice of intention to enter upon its area to carry out a review. In the circumstances, this is not sufficient notice. In many parts, individual local authorities will be negotiating one with another right up to the last moment in order to get agreed statements to present to the Commission. Eight weeks is a satisfactory enough period to be put in the Regulations, but I hope that, while complying with them, the Commission will, wherever possible, give more than eight weeks' notice. In other words, although I do not propose that that period should be extended officially, I hope that more notice will be given wherever possible.
The Minister indicated that Regulation 16 might be used to reduce the number of county boroughs in an area. The Association of Municipal Corporations has submitted to the Royal Commission other aspects of this subject, and has argued that the London area should be split into county boroughs. I assume that under this Regulation, the Association could, if it so desired, submit special proposals to split, say, the City of Birmingham into county boroughs. That would seem to fit into its general views,
292
but whether or not it would be foolish enough to do so I do not know.
I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward these Regulations. I think that they are quite good. I remember the right hon. Gentleman speaking to the Annual Conference of Municipal Treasuries in Edinburgh, two years ago, when he said that he intended to be the man to deal with local government reform in England and Wales. He has had the dirty end of the stick, first, in piloting the Bill through Parliament, and now in drawing up the Regulations. In a way, I am sorry for him because, when the time comes to consider the Commission's recommendations, it will be done by a Minister from this side of the House. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Minister on what he has so far done.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: It is rather a pity that the very excellent series of comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) should have been heard by so few hon. Members and that, except for the very valuable contribution of the Minister, we should have had only one contribution from the other side of the Chamber. Whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us the actual date of the funeral of the party opposite I do not know, but I am sure that we will be glad to hear it if he does.
I support what has been said by several of my hon. Friends about the timetable. All authorities concerned—and, perhaps, especially the areas involved in the special reviews—want to know how soon they are likely to be approached. I know the difficulties, but it would certainly be of great value if those areas could be given some indication of the timetable as soon as possible. A number of very important developments may be held up if there is the feeling that there will shortly be a considerable change in the authorities to be in charge of the developments.
This applies to a large number of schemes relating to local authority areas. For instance, the authorities on the Tyneside are rather automatically assuming that because the Tyneside—in my view, quite properly—is placed first in the Third Schedule to the Act, the Commission will be dealing first with the Tyneside's problems. I do not think that that is the

293
case, but it would be of very great value to be told quickly the order in which the areas are to be dealt with.
I also agree with what has been said about some of the factors that the Commission has to take into account when holding a review, and particularly the item "wishes of the inhabitants," and the very real difficulty there is in achieving any real understanding of this point in relation to local government structure.
The term "vested interest" is, perhaps, not quite the right one, but there are the natural interests that have been established over a number of years, and many of us feel that we have a chance here even to experiment with new forms of local government. We very much hope that the Commission will not be inhibited too much by a natural desire to try to reach as wide a measure of agreement as possible.
It must be the Commission's desire to get a good deal of agreement, but what has been said this evening should indicate that it is quite hopeless to expect that, even if the Commission spends more time on this than we hope it will, it will ever achieve any kind of unanimity of view. It is, therefore, very important that the Commission should attach its proposals to clear lines of principle which will get a wide degree of intelligent support.
It is clear that the two major points to which the Commission must pay regard are, on the one hand, size in relation to efficiency of administration—that the authority should be sufficiently large to enable the services to be properly discharged—and, on the other hand, the need to have an area of such size as to provide for the possibility of contact for those living within the area.
I hope that it will be possible, within these Regulations, for the Commission to think about the contact of the local population in terms of participation at some level with the actual services being provided; that is to say, that the Commission will think in terms of a very intimate form of contact with services, while not being at all afraid of having major local authorities large enough to ensure adequate resources to discharge the very wide and responsible functions they have to carry out. It may well be that, in the future, there will be further
294
responsibilities which these authorities will be required to undertake.
I have one further point with regard to the timing. It is quite clear that we cannot expect reports on a matter of this character to be presented very quickly. Inevitably, the surveys will extend over a considerable period of time—I do not know how much substance there is in the suggestion about ten years—and there will be a longish period of uncertainty.
Will it be possible for the Commission, within that period, to make some kind of interim recommendations with regard to quite modest modifications of boundaries, for example, in respect of a county borough coming within the special review areas, if the Commission thought it desirable, before presenting its recommendations? We are, of course, concerned with our own areas, and there are cases which come to the minds of us all in regard to which it would be undesirable, from all points of view, if relatively modest changes in county borough boundaries were delayed for the whole period of the special review, especially since some of these areas may be late on the list and not considered for some time.
8.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): My right hon. Friend has, unfortunately, another appointment and he apologises to the House for his absence. He is, I know, as I am, very grateful for the favourable reception which has been accorded to these Regulations. It is quite an unusual experience for us.
Mr. Lindgren: It will not last long.
Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) was good enough to compliment my right hon. Friend on one or two of his achievements, but he rather spoiled the compliment by going on to say that a Minister of another party allegiance would be in Whitehall by the time the reports came in. I am bound to say that, about 12 months ago, that was a fear felt by many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, but we all feel very much better about it now.
Mr. Blenkinsop: No doubt the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have become reconciled to it.
Mr. Bevins: I cannot possibly attempt to answer all the questions which have been put. I think that altogether about 200 have been asked. I should, however, like to refer to some of the more important ones.
The first question to which I wish to refer relates to the programme of the Local Government Commissions in England and in Wales. This matter was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). The Act, of course, lays down that the Commission itself shall decide the sequence in which it is to deal with the various review areas, subject to Ministerial direction if the Minister so desires. Regulation 19 ensures that the Commission keeps the Minister informed of its programme. Thus, if the Minister ever felt that he ought to direct the Commission to change its programme, he would be in a position to take action in good time. As my right hon. Friend said, the present position is that the English Commission is collating the views of all local authorities about whether they think that their particular part of the country should be reviewed in advance of the rest, and, if so, why they take that view. In the light of these views from local authorities, the Commission hopes to be able to work out quite soon a programme of reviews for the coming year and, subject to the Minister's approval, to announce it by about the end of this month.
If hon. Members are interested, what the Local Government Commission actually said to the local authorities was that it would like early next year to begin the actual investigation of three review areas, but, before deciding which three areas to take first, it wanted to know whether there were any parts of the country where the local authorities themselves considered the need for review to be particularly urgent. The letter went on to say,
"If your council consider that their part of the country is in this category, they should indicate this by letter to reach the Commission not later than 16th December."
As I say, that process is now going on, and things will begin to take shape before the year is out.
The Commission will start by taking on three sizeable review areas next year, in the hope that its decisions on the major
296
pattern of those areas can be reached, or, at least, can be within sight, by the autumn or the end of 1959. The task will go on. I do not imagine—my right hon. Friend also has said this publicly—that the task will be completed in less than five years, but, as hon. Gentlemen know very well, it is not a question of waiting for all the reports and recommendations to come in. They will be flowing in as from some point next year almost continually and action will be taken by my right hon. Friend and by Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked whether it would be possible for the Commission to hive itself off, as it were, and look at certain areas of the country simultaneously, considering more than one area at the same time. This is possible, but when it comes to making a report and recommendation, that, quite clearly, will be, as it ought to be, the report and recommendation of the full Commission. All the machinery for that is provided under the Fourth Schedule to the Act.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough put one or two questions which I think I ought to touch upon. He asked whether the Minister would have to present the Commission's report to Parliament when he makes his Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the answer to that question, is "Yes"; my right hon. Friend is required to do so by Section 23 (3) of the Act. The hon. Gentleman asked also about the Minister's power to give directions. When the Minister gives directions, he asked, will the House haves an opportunity of commenting upon them, and will the local authority associations be consulted?
It is not easy to give a general answer to a question of this kind, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, because, in the main, the power to give directions is confined to such things as the order in which the reviews are to be carried out, whether a report on a particular area should be presented in two or more documents, and so on. Generally speaking, this power relates to particular local issues, and I do not think that it would be appropriate in such cases to consult the local authority associations. So far as the more important kind of directions are concerned, such as those affecting changes in special review areas under

297
Section 25, there is explicit provision that the Minister must consult the local authorities concerned.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) had something to say about the Welsh Commission. He wanted to know how the matter would develop in the Principality. What I have said about England, of course, applies almost completely to Wales. The procedure of the Local Government Commission for Wales will follow a parallel course. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend is most anxious to complete the task of setting up the Commission for Wales at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Watkins: Except that there are no special review areas to be considered in Wales.
Mr. Bevins: Quite so; but I do not think that that fundamentally affects the position. The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of trends of rural depopulation and asked whether they would he taken into account. I assure him that Regulation 4 has been so drafted to take that sort of factor into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) asked whether the Commission, when considering a county partly in a special review area, will also carry out a review of the county districts in the part of the county that lies outside the special review area. What my right hon. Friend said earlier was that we expect that when the Commission reviews a special review area it will at about the same time deal with another review area, including the surrounding county areas. As my hon. Friend knows, Regulation 14 makes it fairly clear that the Commission is not to reach a final conclusion—and this is the point—on a special review area which includes only part of an administrative county without at least looking at the review area that contains the rest of the county. If my hon. Friend looks at the form of words in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I am sure that he will be satisfied on that point.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) asked me a vast number of questions, some of which I will touch upon. One question was whether Regulation 12 involves a departure from the earlier
298
undertaking that Section 25 would be used only for small variations of a special review area. As I say, that is in Section 25 of the Act. The important point to bear in mind is that Section 25 (2) reads
"If for the purposes of their review of a special review area it appears to the Commission expedient that the whole or any part of a county district adjoining the special review area …"
and so on. It is limited by the wording of the Act to an adjoining county district or part of a county district that adjoins. That undertaking, which is in the Act, still stands.
What about overspill? I will not get sandwiched between the hon. Member for Meriden and his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell), but I should like to reiterate that the duties of the Commission will not be concerned primarily with the future housing needs of Birmingham or any other municipality. The Commission is in no sense a planning authority. But it can certainly propose a joint housing board, or a joint planning board, for that matter. I can think of many circumstances in which a joint planning board would be a vast improvement on our present pattern of local government.
Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that the Commission will have no regard for the efficiency of local government services?
Mr. Bevins: I am not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that the Commission will not be influenced primarily by questions of housing need or overspill. That has been repeated over and over again by my right hon. Friend.
What I was saying was that the Commission can certainly propose a joint housing board or a joint board covering any function if it thinks that good grounds are established for doing so. Such a joint board, by the terms of the Act, can extend to some extent beyond the ambit of the special review area if that is thought necessary.
I was asked by the hon. Gentleman about the wishes of the inhabitants, the factor which comes at the tail end of the nine factors. I assure him that that is purely an accident. We certainly think that the wishes of the inhabitants are very important, but this accident is solely because of the alphabet, which I am quite powerless to change.

299
I was asked whether, if the Commission decided that rural parts of Warwickshire should be taken into the urban area of the West Midlands, it would bear this blow to Warwickshire in mind when it is considering Coventry's ambitions for expansion. The answer is "Yes", because no change will be considered in isolation under the legislation. The total effects of all these matters have to be assessed.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees asked whether eight weeks' notice of an impending review was too long. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who I think expressed the opposite view, that if anything we have erred the other way. We certainly think that eight weeks' notice is not too long. Do the nine factors always have to apply? They have to apply where they are relevant in the circumstances. We were also asked whether the Minister would keep Parliament informed of the programmes as they develop. Again, the answer is "Yes", and there will be plenty of opportunity for Parliament to get to know how the programmes are shaping and developing. If any hon. Member opposite, or indeed on this side of the House, wants to know how they are developing, there is no inhibition from putting down a Parliamentary Question to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) referred to the nine factors and asked about the nature of the services which local authorities have to administer. The nature of the services is a part of the circumstances and needs which I think the hon. Gentleman knows we refer to in Regulations 3 and 4 and also in the Act. I think that they are mentioned at two or three points in the Regulations, especially in association with the special review areas, but none of the factors in the Regulations are not exclusive and they do not prevent the Commission paying regard to other factors.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints, asked how the Commission could usefully act under Regulation 12 at the beginning of its review. Regulation 12 reads:
"As soon as practicable after entering on the review of a special review area, …"
and so on. I am assured that that means, as soon as the Commission has
300
found out enough to justify it in forming an opinion. The point of the wording is that the Commission should not leave the decision whether or not there should be a variation in the special review area until it is too late.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints, also asked whether Regulation 11 would have the effect of strangling county boroughs, and I think that he also felt that this Regulation was perhaps to some extent in conflict with Regulation 12. I do not think that it is. The Regulations still leave the Commission free to propose whatever it finds best for any area, whether in the interests of expansion or restriction, according to local circumstances.
I should say to the hon. Member for Islington, North that there is no significance in the order of the alternative courses set out for the special review areas in the sequence given in page 3 of the Statutory Instrument. He also made the point that the Commission would have to be careful in the weight that it attached to the views which it received from certain citizens and local organisations in undertaking its reviews. I think that the implication was that certain people might have axes of one sort or another to grind. No doubt that is true. Let us be frank that in a matter of this sort, although we are all primarily concerned with improving the effectiveness and efficiency of local government, very few of us can put our hands on our hearts and say that our views are not coloured to some extent by considerations which are extraneous to that principal consideration. I am sure that the members of the Commission will be sufficiently wide awake—I am sure that they are sufficiently intelligent—to have regard to those possibilities.
In conclusion, the Government and my right hon. Friend are confident that if the Commissions follow both the letter and spirit of the Regulations they can be assured of the support of the Government and Parliament. The Commissions are being offered this guidance, not in order to hamper them, but to help and strengthen them in what will be a difficult but nevertheless, we hope, very worth while task. With those remarks, I commend the Regulations to the House.
Mr. Sparks: Can the Parliamentary Secretary cast some light on this question?

301
The Commissions undoubtedly will report in due course. They will be reporting upon the creation of new local government structures, including, as the hon. Gentleman said, joint boards as well as other bodies. Are the Commissions empowered to set down the constitution for these new bodies that their reports may create, based either upon the elected or the nominated principle, or jointly? The Commissions will presumably recommend to Parliament the creation of new bodies, some of which are at present unknown to us in local government experience. Whether they are to be elected, nominated or a combination of the two, their constitution is an important matter. Are the Commissions empowered precisely to do this? Is it one of their functions?
Mr. Bevins: I speak subject to correction, but the provision in the Act, I think, is that in cases where a joint board is recommended by the Commission—this is only commonsense—it would state what it thought the constitution and representation of the joint board should be. It would make nonsense of the conception of a joint board in any locality if the Commission simply made a bald recommendation without having any authority to deal with its constitution.
question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Commission Regulations, 1958. dated 21st November, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR COUNCIL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)
8.22 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Sugar Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1958, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th November.
I have been a member of the House long enough to realise what a keen interest hon. Members take in questions of immunity and privileges. Furthermore, I know well that when I see the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) in his place it behoves one to be more than usually precise. I
302
should like to say a word or two of explanation about the Order.
The International Sugar Agreement, 1953, expires at the end of this year and Her Majesty's Government and the other Governments concerned have concluded a new and very good Agreement, which was laid before Parliament on 20th November. We hope that this Agreement can come into force next January. It is almost similar in every respect to the previous one.
The only difference concerning privileges and immunities is in Article 38 (6), which replaces the word "funds" in the original Agreement with the words "assets, income and other property". This has made necessary a small amendment in Article 3 of the International Sugar Council Order, which is already in force. The only practical effect of this change will be to confer on the Sugar Council a partial exemption from municipal rating charges on its London offices, similar to that accorded in respect of the official premises of diplomatic missions. No new personal reliefs or exemptions are involved or, indeed, contemplated.
All that we are doing is simply to take this opportunity of bringing the arrangements for the Sugar Council in London into line with other commodity councils. The proposed amendment in Article 38 (6) of the new Agreement, which is reflected in Article 3 of tonight's Order, gives effect to this.
8.24 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice: I am glad to have this opportunity of welcoming the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the Front Bench on the occasion of his first speaking since taking up his new appointment. The hon. Gentleman certainly has not been lacking in precision. His address was a model of lucidity and precision and seemed to me somewhat to highlight Horace's famous line about the mountains labouring and a mouse being born.
This modest little mouse is a piece of business which rounds off an evening's debate which, perhaps, can be said not to have been remarkable for its forensic thrills. I do not imagine that the House is galvanised with any particularly electric feeling at learning that the existing Order is being changed in the particular which the Minister has described.

303
The Order, although not stimulating the House to any unusual degree of effervescence, certainly has introduced into the proceedings a tone of mystery. When one looks at the Order, it is difficult to discover why this small change in the municipal rating of the premises of the Sugar Council is achieved by Article 3 of the Order. I certainly accept at once from the Minister that that is its effect.
Paragraph 3 states:
"The Council shall have the like exemption or relief from taxes and rates, other than taxes on the importation of goods, as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power."
By some process of ratiocination which is difficult to discern under the somewhat arid words of that Article, no doubt one reaches the desirable bourne which the hon. Gentleman has indicated as having been attained by this new Order.
As the Joint Under-Secretary has said, Members on both sides of the House are always anxious to ensure that when any new immunities are conferred there is a just and reasonable case for them. That issue does not arise in this debate, because the question whether the members of the Sugar Council should be accorded special immunities has, in effect, been decided by the House in passing the previous Order which the present one replaces.
As the Minister has said, all that the Order does is to give effect to a change in the wording of what was Article 38 (6) of the old Order and becomes a slightly changed Article 38 (6) of the new Order. "Funds" in the old Order becomes "assets, income and other property" in the new Order. Exactly what the difference is, I do not know. "Funds" would have seemed to me to be a general comprehensive term. I cannot imagine income which does not constitute funds. Assets might be assets which fall outside the scope of the word "funds".
However that may be, I do not think that it would be profitable or of interest to the House to prod more deeply into the precise minutiae of the substituted phrase. Speaking for myself and, I believe, for my right hon. Friends on this side, we have no objection to change which the Minister seeks to introduce by his new Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Sugar Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1958, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th November.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

EAST ANGLIAN HOSPITAL BOARD (BUILDER'S CLAIM)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Chichester-Clark.]
8.29 p.m.
Mr. W. T. Aitken: I am grateful for this opportunity of raising the case of Mr. Harvey Frost, who is head of a well-known and reputable firm of builders in Bury St. Edmunds. In July, 1951, Mr. Frost entered into a contract for the reconstruction of the West Suffolk Hospital which had been severely damaged by fire in 1949.
In July, 1951, Mr. Frost started his reconstruction work. For many years Mr. Frost's firm had carried out most of the expansion programme of this very well-known and highly efficient hospital, but the task of reconstruction turned out to be a very lengthy and difficult job, partly because of the necessity of doing reconstruction whilst part of the hospital was still in use, but also because as the work proceeded the contractors found that the foundations of the external walls had been badly built by the original builders over 100 years ago. The foundations and the load-bearing cavity walls of the hospital were quite inadequate to support the weight of the new construction.
For this reason, and perhaps because the hospital authorities had rushed ahead a little with the reconstruction, in other words, because the architectural planning had not been properly done, a large number of variation orders had to be issued. But the work was finally completed in the spring of 1955. At that time, after many interim payments had been made, the East Anglian Hospital Board owed Mr. Frost about £17,000. It was quite clear to Mr. Frost and his advisers at that time that there would be considerable delay in obtaining the whole of this final payment from the Hospital Board.

305
To avoid the possibility of having recourse to full-scale arbitration, which is always provided for in this kind of contract but is a lengthy and expensive business especially for a person who loses the arbitration, Mr. Frost invoked part of the clause which compels hospital authorities to bring out a final bill for variation. The reason why he wanted the bill to be made out as quickly as possible was that he realised that the architect employed by the Hospital Board, who was responsible for the final bill, had issued so many variation orders in the course of reconstruction work that it was obvious that the task of preparing the bill would be a very complicated and involved one.
It turned out to be so, because the small architectural staff of the hospital found it a task quite beyond their powers. Two years later, therefore, the final bill had not been completed and the West Suffolk Regional Hospital Board called in an outside firm of quantity surveyors to prepare this bill. Mr. Frost, realising that this was an expensive matter for the Board, offered to settle on a basis which would be very much in line with the original competitive nature of the contract. The Board agreed to his suggestion and Colonel Ackland, an eminent local quantity surveyor, who, I am sorry to say, has since died, was specially appointed by the Board to produce a figure for settlement.
Colonel Ackland produced his report in October, 1957, and in it he proposed that Mr. Frost should be paid, in addition to the amounts already paid to him, a sum of about £9,000. Mr. Frost agreed to accept this settlement, subject to the inclusion of an interest payment on the money which had been so long overdue to him. In fact, this sum of £9.000, plus the accrued interest, was almost exactly what Mr. Frost had estimated to the quantity surveyor as the amount due to him., because it was only at that time that he had seen the final bill for variations.
The Board proposed that Colonel Ackland should make a separate report on making interest payments on sums overdue to Mr. Frost. In this report, Colonel Ackland advised that the interest at the rate he specified should be
306
accepted by the Board as part of the agreed settlement.
It is clear from the correspondence between the Board and Mr. Frost's solicitors that the Board was prepared to include an interest payment. The amount, by this time, had reached £1,900. Under the several limitations of expenditure which are imposed on hospital boards by the Ministry of Health, permission must first be sought to make such payments, particularly one like this, so that the Board, having admitted the liability to pay interest as part of the settlement with Mr. Frost, quite properly sought permission from the Ministry of Health to make the payment.
The Ministry of Health refused its permission and since that time has endeavoured to make a settlement with Mr. Frost. The first offer was of £500 and we had some reason to believe from the information Mr. Frost obtained that it would be prepared to go even higher. After further discussion with the secretary of the Hospital Board, it was clearly evident that the Board felt that it had some obligation to pay this rate of interest. I do not think—and I hope that my hon. Friend will not argue—that there was any responsibility for this delay on the part of Mr. Frost, because if there was, the practice of splitting the difference might have some justification. It seems to me to be quite clear that the mere fact that Colonel Ackland, the unofficial arbitrator, had accepted the fact that there was a case for payment of interest would indicate that Mr. Frost was not responsible in any way for the delays over payment.
My object in raising this matter in the House is not entirely for the purpose of trying to get another £900 or so for my constituent. There is an important question of principle involved, a question of principle about which Mr. Frost feels very keenly. I know that his federation, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, also feels strongly about it. I am bound to say, on the facts as I understand them, that I am very much in agreement with Mr. Frost and that Federation.
First, there were long delays in payment which were not the fault of, or caused in any way by, the contractors. These delays can have a serious effect

307
on any contractor, and indeed on many other forms of business. Their working capital position was affected, a position which was intensified by the recent credit restrictions imposed by Her Majesty's Government. In fact, the Treasury, the Ministry or the Board have imposed an unnecessary hardship on the contractors and, also, are clearly making a profit at their expense. It is not the fault of Mr. Frost or the firm which the Hospital Board engaged that this situation has arisen. It is entirely the responsibility of the Ministry of Health.
I am sure that if any other business had delayed payments to a firm of contractors for such a length of time they would certainly have been placed in the courts, and under the Law Reform Act of 1935 any court or an arbitrator can include an allowance for interest in judgment. I do not consider that it is either fair or reasonable for the Minister of Health to repudiate an obligation—and there is a very good case for saying that there is an obligation—of the Hospital Board.
This was an overall settlement which could have been agreed between Mr. Frost and the Board. I find it a little surprising, as the contract was with the Board and not with the Ministry, that it does not seem to have been realised by the Ministry that this settlement was arrived at partly, and probably mainly, because of Mr. Frost's desire to assist the Hospital Board. Certainly, if Colonel Ackland had been an official arbitrator in this business he would have been entitled to award interest as part of the overall settlement—at least, as far as I have been able to understand the correspondence. If that had been the case, the Ministry could not have challenged the decision, as it has done.
I hope that the Minister will make a much more thorough investigation of this case than appears to have been done. Mr. Frost has offered on more than one occasion to attend on the Minister's representatives. I am convinced that if they were willing to see him and discuss the whole thing with him he could probably disabuse them of some of the ideas which they seem to have formed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into this matter very carefully, indeed. If he does, he may well save his Department and the Board a good deal of trouble, further
308
delay and expense, because I think that he will end by finding that he will have to accept the view of the distinguished expert who made the on-the-spot investigation which appeared to be acceptable to the Board.
8.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) for raising this matter since, apart from its obvious constituency interest, it involves certain matters of principle to which I want to refer. My hon. Friend has stated the history of this affair quite clearly, so I do not propose to go over that ground again at any length.
Of the 10 tenders received for the repair of the West Suffolk Hospital, Mr. Harvey Frost's, at £88,794, was the lowest and was accepted. It is true that at that time the completion of the contract was stated to be 50 weeks, although in the event it took three and half times as long. However, I imply no criticism of the contractor, because I fully accept my hon. Friend's account of this matter, which showed that many difficulties arose during the course of the work—additional work was involved and there was the reinforcement of piers, renewal of defective timber, eradication of dry rot, and matters of that kind.
In the end, the East Anglian Hospital Board paid the contractor £138,937 13s. 10d., which was much more than the original contract, about 60 per cent. more, but, even so, less than the contractor claimed. Two years' negotiations ensued between the Board and Mr. Frost to try to achieve a settlement of the additional amount which he was claiming. At one time, he proposed that the settlement should be on a cost-plus basis and not on the original contract terms. The Board was right to turn that down because, after all, the contract had been awarded originally on competitive tendering and the Board could not ignore that.
As my hon. Friend said, in August, 1956, Mr. Frost gave formal notice of arbitration, and subsequently the parties agreed to submit the matter to the late Colonel Ackland, and to ask him to act, as an adviser to both sides, a kind of unofficial arbitrator. Colonel Ackland

309
considered the revised contractor's claim for £20,213 and concluded that a sum of £9,224 should be paid extra-contractually, in full settlement.
Mr. Aitken: The difference between the £20,000 and the £9,000 arose because Mr. Frost saw the final bill of variation some time after he had made his original claim for £23,000, so that he could not know what the costs were until he saw the final bill of variation. That is why he accepted the difference between £23,000 and £9,000.
Mr. Thompson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Whatever may be the reason for the difference, it is certain that a sum of £9,224 was Colonel Ackland's proposal for full settlement.
I have refreshed my recollection of this matter by looking at copies of the original documents, and I want to say that at this stage in Colonel Ackland's original report no mention of interest was made. This is of great importance, because the dispute revolves round the interest charged; that is the gravamen of my hon. Friend's remarks. Mr. Frost contended that Colonel Ackland's report should have contained an award of interest on any sum agreed as payable. He did not at that time accept all Colonel Ackland's conclusions, or the sum of £9,224 as an adequate award; he maintained throughout that any sum due to him should carry interest, and my hon. Friend has made an eloquent and effective plea for admitting the claim.
I wish it were as simple as that. I had better say what is the Government view and the usual procedure in this kind of case. Where a Government Department, through its own fault or the fault of another Government Department, fails to make payment on a due date, or unreasonably withholds payment, that Department is authorised by the Treasury to pay interest as from three months after the creditor has established his claim. The amount of interest is determined by negotiation and in practice does not normally exceed the current Bank Rate. This procedure must equally apply to regional hospital boards acting on behalf of the Ministry of Health.
The criterion of payment is unjustifiable delay by the Government or their agents. I do not think that one can claim—as I have seen suggested in some
310
of the correspondence in this matter—that the Government have been sitting on the money and deriving benefit from it and using it. Next to no profit accrues to the Government because in these matters the Government themselves have to borrow in order to settle the claim.
The failure to reach agreement up to the time of Colonel Ackland's award was not in my view due solely to the actions of the Hospital Board or of Government Departments, although I recognise and accept that some delay was due to staff shortage at the Board. The board obviously has an unmistakable duty not to pay out large sums of public money without the most detailed inquiry, and it must limit the payments it makes to what is strictly due. Colonel Ackland's award amounted to roughly half the claim—which to my mind suggests that the Board's cautious approach was justified. In saying that. I want to make it clear that I am not necessarily imputing any blame to either party to this dispute, because in my view—and I realise that I differ from my hon. Friend here—the responsibility for delay both in the building work and in the determination and settling of the account cannot be said to be any one person's fault alone, or be laid at the door of one person or Department.
The suggestion has been made that the payment of interest should inevitably and automatically follow from Colonel Ackland's expressed view as an unofficial arbitrator on this matter. Surely what matters is what Colonel Ackland did award, not what he might have awarded.
Although, strictly speaking, Colonel Ackland was an adviser, he was called in to try to secure agreement without recourse to official arbitration. I ought, perhaps, to say a word on the legal aspects of this matter, as I am advised. A distinction is drawn in law between interest in respect of any period between the time when the liability rose and the date of the arbitrator's award, and interest in respect of any period after the arbitrator's award. As regards interest for the earlier period, the Court of Appeal has held that an arbitrator has the same powers as are given to a Court by Section 3 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, and may include interest at such rate as he thinks fit on the whole or any part of the debt

311
or damages for the whole, or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of the judgment.
It will be noted that the inclusion of interest is wholly discretionary as to whether there should be any, or at what rate, or on what amount or for what period. It cannot be argued that a person in Colonel Ackland's position, in so far as he was acting as an arbitrator, would necessarily allow full interest without consideration of all the circumstances and the actions of both parties.
The position as regards the period subsequent to the award is quite different. Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1950 states that
"A sum directed to be paid by an award shall, unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest as from the date of the award and at the same rate as a judgment debt."
We should certainly think it unusual for an arbitrator to direct that an award should not carry interest after it was made, and in subsequent offers to Mr. Frost to settle his claim, a sum in respect of such interest has been included.
What was Colonel Ackland's view on this all-important matter of interest? It is not quite so simple as has been suggested. Unhappily, as my hon. Friend said, he is now dead so we can only judge from his written comments which have been equally available to both parties. The original award recommended payment of £9,224 in full settlement, and made no mention of interest. That was in October, 1957. In a letter of 4th October, 1957, Mr. Frost claimed entitlement to interest at whatever sum was finally agreed as payable from the date when it would have become payable under the contract. After a meeting of the interested parties, Colonel Ackland reconsidered the question of interest and, in a further letter to the Board, stated that if payment of interest were acceptable and he suggested that it would be appropriate in this case, £1,883 14s. 3d. subject to some minor adjustment, should be added to the account.
This was not Colonel Ackland's last word. On 5th December, 1957, he wrote to the Board to the effect that there might be some force in the argument that, as the matter had been the subject of negotiation, the interest might be divided between the parties. He suggested that dates
312
should be agreed with the contractor as to when negotiations on the claim took place.
Mr. Aitken: May I ask whether the implication is that Mr. Frost was responsible for part of the delay in the payment? Is that the implication which my hon. Friend assumes from Colonel Ackland's last letter?
Mr. Thompson: The assumption I make from the letter, and from my reading of the quite voluminous papers in this case, is that it is not possible to apportion the whole of the blame for the delays which occurred in this matter to the actions of the Ministry of Health or the Hospital Board. My reading of it is that at the end of the day he came to the conclusion that there had been delays on both sides, but he did not specify the precise proportion.
Colonel Ackland's final view on the matter agrees with the view of the Government in such cases where precise responsibility for delay is indeterminable. Nor could we say to what extent the delay was inevitable or unjustifiable. In such circumstances it seems practically impossible to assess an identifiable rate of interest on an identifiable amount for an identifiable period. I should think that the negotiations ought to be started with the contractor for some payment reflecting, so far as possible, a proportion of responsibility for unjustifiable delay attributable to the Department or its agents. That is what we are trying to do, and I hope that after the useful discussion we have had this evening we may come to some agreement on this matter.
On the view that something was due to Mr. Frost in connection with delays in payment for which we and the Board take some responsibility, £500 was offered in settlement in July, 1958. When this proved unacceptable the Board was empowered—this was after my hon. Friend's letter to me—to negotiate further up to a limit of £1,000, which is slightly more than half the total claim. We then thought that Mr. Frost might be prepared to negotiate and I regretted it when the offer was turned down and the claim was restated that interest should be payable in full from the date of the completion of the work.

313
I must repeat—perhaps I differ here from my hon. Friend—that this principle is not acceptable, and the only settlement that I could agree to would be one reached by negotiation based on some proportion of the sum claimed. I understand the difficulties in reaching such an agreement and I hope I have made clear that there is no thought in my mind of denying all responsibility or apportioning blame in this matter. I hope that the discussions we have had this evening will open the way for Mr. Frost to accept the offer the Board has been authorised to make.
314
I can say at once that if it would be helpful in this matter for officers of my Department to see Mr. Frost and have a further talk about this, I will gladly see that such a meeting is arranged soon. If such a meeting takes place with a fruitful result, I think my hon. Friend may feel that his initiative in raising this matter with all its important implications, has certainly not been wasted.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Nine o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pension Schemes (Tax Relief)
  Pension Schemes (Tax Relief)
  Development Areas Advisory Committee (Greenock Applications)
  Development Areas Advisory Committee (Greenock Applications)
  Petrol and Oil (Tax)
  Petrol and Oil (Tax)
  Cost of Living (Pensions)
  Cost of Living (Pensions)
  Civil Servants (Stamped Signatures)
  Civil Servants (Stamped Signatures)
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Investment)
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Investment)
  Whisky
  Whisky
  Distribution of Industry (Assistance Applications)
  Distribution of Industry (Assistance Applications)
  Post-war Credits
  Post-war Credits
  Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency
  Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES (STANDING COMMISSION)
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES (STANDING COMMISSION)
  AUTOMATION
  AUTOMATION
  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS
  EURATOM
  EURATOM
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM DELEGATION)
WALES
  Council for Wales and Monmouth
  Council for Wales and Monmouth
HOUSING
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Rent Act, 1957 (Repairs)
  Rent Act, 1957 (Repairs)
  General Subsidy
  General Subsidy
  Temporary Accommodation
  Temporary Accommodation
  Road Programmes (Displaced Persons)
  Road Programmes (Displaced Persons)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  River Tyne (Pollution)
  River Tyne (Pollution)
  Factory, Swindon (Complaint)
  Factory, Swindon (Complaint)
  Radioactive Materials, Bristol
  Radioactive Materials, Bristol
  Litter Act, 1958
  Litter Act, 1958
  Lurgi Gasification Plant, Coleshill
  Lurgi Gasification Plant, Coleshill
  Health Authorities (Grants)
  Health Authorities (Grants)
  Recreational Facilities (Grants)
  Recreational Facilities (Grants)
  Greater London (Report)
  Greater London (Report)
TANGANYIKA
  Secondary School Places
  Secondary School Places
AFRICAN TERRITORIES
  Conference on Islami Education
  Conference on Islami Education
CYPRUS
  N.A.A.F.I. Employees (Dismissals)
  N.A.A.F.I. Employees (Dismissals)
  Convicted Terrorists (Overseas Detention)
  Convicted Terrorists (Overseas Detention)
MALTA
  Students (Overseas Education)
  Students (Overseas Education)
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Dockyard Workers (Employment)
  Dockyard Workers (Employment)
  STATEMENT
  STATEMENT
KENYA
  Detainees
  Detainees
  Jomo Kenyatta (Trial)
  Jomo Kenyatta (Trial)
  Lokitaung Prison
  Lokitaung Prison
  Public Meetings
  Public Meetings
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  House of Commons (Annunciators)
  House of Commons (Annunciators)
  Horse Guards Parade (Car Parking)
  Horse Guards Parade (Car Parking)
SCOTLAND
  Rent Act, 1957 (Eviction of Tenants)
  Rent Act, 1957 (Eviction of Tenants)
  Edinburgh and Glasgow Infirmaries
  Edinburgh and Glasgow Infirmaries
  Glasgow Royal College of Science
  Glasgow Royal College of Science
  Glasgow Overspill Population (Firms)
  Glasgow Overspill Population (Firms)
  Committee on Diligence (Report)
  Committee on Diligence (Report)
  Graving Dock, Greenock
  Graving Dock, Greenock
  Marginal Agricultural Production Grants
  Marginal Agricultural Production Grants
  Education Authorities (Joint Planning and Bulk Buying)
  Education Authorities (Joint Planning and Bulk Buying)
  Steamer Services, Western Isles
  Steamer Services, Western Isles
  Schoolchildren (Christmas Work)
  Schoolchildren (Christmas Work)
  Fire Station, East Kilbride
  Fire Station, East Kilbride
  Advance Factories, Cumbernauld
  Advance Factories, Cumbernauld
  Foxes and Otters (Trapping)
  Foxes and Otters (Trapping)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Factory Building, Wales
  Factory Building, Wales
  Mineworkers, Birtley (Employment)
  Mineworkers, Birtley (Employment)
  Factory and Industrial Sites, North-East Scotland
  Factory and Industrial Sites, North-East Scotland
  Kidsgrove
  Kidsgrove
  Business Failures
  Business Failures
  Import Duties (Instruments and Apparatus)
  Import Duties (Instruments and Apparatus)
  Monopolies Commission (Fertiliser Industry)
  Monopolies Commission (Fertiliser Industry)
TRANSPORT
  Diesel Fumes
  Diesel Fumes
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Law of Larceny
  Law of Larceny
  Electric Blankets
  Electric Blankets
  Probation Officers (Salaries)
  Probation Officers (Salaries)
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensions (Exchequer Contribution)
  Retirement Pensions (Exchequer Contribution)
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Contributions
  Contributions
  Development Areas (Insured Employees)
  Development Areas (Insured Employees)
  Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
POST OFFICE
  Premium Bonds (Unclaimed Prizes)
  Premium Bonds (Unclaimed Prizes)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Travel Warrants (Cost)
  Travel Warrants (Cost)
  BOW COUNTY COURT CASES (HOUSING)
  BOW COUNTY COURT CASES (HOUSING)
EDUCATION
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Public Library Service (Report)
  Public Library Service (Report)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Hospitals, London
  Hospitals, London

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

STRENGTH OF FLEET IN 1961
2.35 p.m.
EARL HOWE: 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 a statement can be made showing what the total strength of the Fleet will be in 1961, in the various classes, distinguishing between ships that are operational and ships in reserve.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, it is not the practice to give details of the size of the Armed Forces for periods two or three years ahead. I have, however, given as much detailed information as I can in my Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates, with which I am sure the noble Earl is familiar. I would also draw his attention to paragraphs 44 to 51 of this year's Defence White Paper, which outlined the tasks of the Royal Navy and the broad areas where ships will be maintained in order to fulfil them. I can assure the noble Earl that we intend to maintain a Fleet which will fulfil these tasks. We will also maintain in Reserve sufficient ships to keep the Active Fleet fully up to strength.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl very much indeed for his Answer, may I ask him whether he would dissent from the statement that in 1961 the operational Fleet will consist of three carriers and three cruisers, so far as important ships are concerned?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, so far as that is concerned, that statement has been made already in the White Paper and I do not think it requires my assent or dissent.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does the First Lord really think that that is adequate for the needs of the Royal Navy, even in peace time, with all the contingencies which constantly arise?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, that is a subject we have debated in the past and I have no doubt we shall debate again in the future. I do not think that at the present time I need to add very much to what I have said before.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think the House and the public are entitled to know whether the Board of Admiralty really consider that to be sufficient. We need the minimum for security and for general policing duties.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount must put down a specific Question if he wants that answered. I really cannot add to what I have said already on a matter which is really one for debate and not simply a question of fact.

OFFICERS' AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS
2.39 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the question of officers' and widows' pensions, in view of the expression of the opinion of this House on the 13th of November.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I take it the noble Lord's Question is directed particularly to those who are already drawing pensions. As regards officers in this category the Government must adhere to the position I explained on the 13th November, namely, that they do not see how special treatment could be justified. As was, however, stated by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Defence, in another place on the 24th November, the Government are going into the whole matter of Service widows' pensions to see whether there are any valid grounds on which we could

83
reasonably justify making a differentiation in favour of this category of pensioner.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether it is to be understood that Her Majesty's Government disregard the opinion constitutionally expressed by your Lordships' House.
EARL WOOLTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I wonder whether he could help the House by letting us know what would be the cost to Her Majesty's Treasury if they fulfilled the desires expressed in this House?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the answer to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, was given in the Grigg Report and I gave those figures when we held the debate on this subject.
EARL WOOLTON: I apologise to the noble Earl for not remembering the figures. I wonder whether he could tell us again?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is rather outside this Question and my memory is extremely fallible, but I remember something of the order of £50 million a year. With regard to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, made, I would say that of course we do not disregard anything said in this House. But the Government cannot act on every expression of opinion.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if I understood the noble Earl correctly, he did not state that the question of officers' pensions was being looked at again. If that is so, what was the offer he made to my noble friend, Lord Jeffreys, in the debate? When I asked that question in the debate, he was apparently unable to answer.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I made an offer to the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, and the noble Lord declined it.
LORD DERWENT: My question is, what was the offer? Could the noble Earl tell me what it was?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a little outside the Question. I do not know that the offer is relevant at the present time. The offer I made was to see whether any differentiation could be
84
made, if the noble Lord thought it could. As he did not accept that offer I presume he did not think it could.

DISPOSAL OF HERR KRUPP'S ASSETS
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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 (1) whether they are aware that in April of this year Herr Alfred Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach came out publicly against the Allied order to de-concentrate his concern; (2) whether the Federal Government agreed legally to enforce the 1953 deconcentration agreement; (3) whether since July further discussions have taken place with the Federal Government on the subject, and, if so, what is their nature; and (4) whether they can give an assurance that their policy is directed to ensuring that Herr Krupp shall not be released from any of his undertakings under the 1953 agreement.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the Answer to the first and second parts of the noble Viscount's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the third and fourth parts of the Question, discussions have been continuing with the French and United States Government and with the Federal Government, but until decisions are reached I can add nothing to the previous replies on this subject.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer, but may I ask him whether Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, when Minister of State, said in the House of Commons on March 4, 1953:
"The Federal Government will continue to give effect to Allied High Commission Law No. 27, until the whole deconcentration programme for the West German iron and steel industry is completed."
But is it not widely known that, in the words of The Times of May 1, 1958,
"… there can be little doubt that the Federal Government is still loth to carry out the responsibilities it undertook as regards the deconcentration of Herr Krupp's assets when sovereignty was conferred."

85
May I ask the noble Marquess this question? Is he aware that this employer of slave labour's activities—using assets which have not been deconcentrated as they should have been by this date—is reaching to all corners of the world, in an effort to obtain a dominating world economic position for Germany at our, and other countries', expense?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of all the facts concerned in this case, and I must ask the noble Viscount to accept what I said in my original reply. I fully appreciate that the noble Viscount is perfectly entitled to revert to this question as often as he wishes, but this is the seventh time in twelve months that the question has been raised and, so far as I am aware, almost every single aspect of it has been answered most thoroughly by the Government. I must ask the noble Viscount to accept what I said in my original reply.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for what he has said.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that the noble Viscount has referred to this matter on previous occasions and, in view of that, whether he would think it possible to give a little wider description of the principle pursued by Her Majesty's Government rather than the limitations which still seem to be surrounding this matter from time to time whenever the noble Viscount rises to ask the question?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Marquess give all the rest of us who are more than mildly interested just a plain answer? Is the Federal Government carrying out the deconcentration agreement? Is it carrying it out, or has it carried it out?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the deconcentration agreement is being carried out, and we have repeatedly in the past given answers to this question as to the extent to which it has been carried out. It is perfectly correct
86
that all the assets of Herr Krupp have not yet been disposed of.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, would it not be more correct to say that the deconcentration agreement is being carried out in part, and only in part, and at a very slow rate at that?

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Overseas Resources Development Acts, 1948 to 1958, other than the provisions thereof relating to the Overseas Food Corporation. My Lords, I beg to move that this Consolidation Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (LICENSING AND INSURANCE) BILL [H.L.]
2.46 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I reminded your Lordships that this Bill has not be reprinted since the last time upon which it was in Committee.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4, as amended, agreed to.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS)THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS) moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Dangerous occurrences in connection with licensed sites
".—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect on the happening on, or in connection with the use of, any licensed site

87
of an occurrence of any such class or description as may be prescribed.
(2) The licensee shall cause the occurrence to be reported forthwith in the prescribed manner to the Minister, and if the occurrence is not so reported the licensee shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction—

(a) in the case of a first offence under this subsection, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds;

(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence under this subsection, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.

(3) The Minister may at any time direct an inspector to make a special report with respect to the occurrence, and the Minister may cause any such report, or so much thereof as in his opinion it is consistent with the interests of national security to disclose, to be made public at such time and in such manner as he thinks fit.
(4) The Minister may, where he thinks it expedient so to do, direct an inquiry to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act into the occurrence and its causes, circumstances and effects; and any such inquiry shall be held in public except where or to the extent that it appears to the Minister expedient in the interests of national security to direct otherwise.
(5) The Minister may by order make provision for enabling such particulars of any person shown to have been within such area during such period (being the period during which the occurrence took place) as may be specified in the order to be registered by or on behalf of that person in such manner as may be so specified, and any such registration in respect of any person shall be sufficient evidence of his presence within that area during that period unless the contrary is proved; and any such order shall be made by statutory instrument and be laid before Parliament after being made.
(6) Where, by reason of the gravity of the occurrence or having regard to any previous occurrences on, or in connection with the use of, the site which have resulted or may result in claims such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section four of this Act, the Minister thinks it proper so to do, he shall by notice in writing to the licensee direct that a new cover period for the purposes of the said subsection (1) shall begin in respect of that site on such date not earlier than two months after the date of the service of the notice as may be specified therein.
(7) Where, in the case of an occurrence in Scotland which causes the death of any person, the Minister directs an inquiry to be held into the occurrence under subsection (4) of this section, no inquiry with regard to that death shall, unless the Lord Advocate otherwise directs, be held in pursuance of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act. 1895."
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will remember, when we were
88
considering this Bill on the last occasion it was arranged that it should be committed to your Lordships' House in order that the Amendment which had been put down to Clause 5, at page 8, line 4, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Silkin, Lord Granville-West and Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, might be debated separately. In accordance with this arrangement, I therefore beg to move the inclusion in the Bill of this clause, which is the same as Clause 5 in its original form, in order that noble Lords opposite may move their Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mills.)
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, after subsection (5) to insert:
"(6) Where a person has so registered as is provided in the preceding subsection or not having so registered establishes his presence within the area and during the period referred to in the preceding subsection and such person has suffered hurt or damage to property of such character as gives rise to the presumption that such hurt or damage is attributable to ionising radiations as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section three of this Act then such person shall be deemed to have suffered such hurt or damage in consequence of such ionising radiations aforesaid unless the contrary is proved."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment to the Amendment I should like to reserve the position of my noble friends on the clauses which have just been passed. We have let them go to-day because we did not wish to debate them afresh; but in fact on quite a number of them we have expressed our dissatisfaction and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has given undertakings that he will reconsider certain provisions of them. We are quite prepared to accept those undertakings, and we are to have the benefit of possible discussions off the record. It is subject to those undertakings—it must not be deemed otherwise—that we have allowed these clauses to go through without opposition. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, is under no misapprehension and appreciates that we are not satisfied with these clauses as they stand.
I now want to turn to the Amendment which I am moving. I think it is a simple one, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord will find himself, in principle, able to accept it. The point is just this: that where an incident has occurred and an individual can establish that he was

89
present at the time, and can also establish—and I want to use very broad language—that the injury from which he is suffering is due to the effects of that incident, then he should be entitled to be compensated without any further proof on his part, unless the licensee can controvert that evidence.
Even under the Bill as it stands, a person who has been injured will be in a position to make a claim within ten years from the date of the incident. We on this side very much hope that that period may be extended indefinitely and that there will be no limit to the time within which a person can make a claim. I believe that we had considerable support for that proposal from the Government side of the House, and I greatly hope that the noble Lord the Minister will see his way to meet us on this matter. But even accepting ten years as the period during which a claim must be made, an injured person will be put in a hopeless position in having to establish a claim if the injury manifests itself, say, at the end of eight or nine years after the occurrence, if he has to prove that his injury is, in fact, due to the particular occurrence. It is true that he may be able to establish that he was present, but he may find it impossible to overcome the difficulty of establishing cause and effect between his own injury and the occurrence.
I want to draw your Lordships attention to subsection (3) of the new clause under discussion. It says that, where an occurrence does take place:
"The Minister may at any time direct an inspector to make a special report with respect to the occurrence, and the Minister may cause any such report, or so much thereof as in his opinion it is consistent with the interests of national security to disclose, to be made public at such time and in such manner as he thinks fit."
If such a report is made public it may go some way towards helping the injured individual to establish his claim. But what happens if that report is not made public? I imagine that there will be a number of cases where it may not be in the public interest to disclose that report, and the position will then be that the injured person will have no information and no evidence upon which he can establish his claim, while the licensee will have all the benefits of the result of that inquiry and will be able to controvert him.
Again, subsection (4) of the new clause deals with the same point. It says:
90
"The Minister may, where he thinks it expedient so to do, direct an inquiry to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act into the occurrence and its causes, circumstances and effects; and any such inquiry shall be held in public except where or to the extent that it appears to the Minister expedient in the interests of national security to direct otherwise."
So that we may get this state of affairs. An occurrence takes place and after, perhaps, eight, nine or conceivably many more years, if the period is extended, a man may find that he is suffering injuries which are consistent with the effects of an occurrence. He can establish that he was there but can prove nothing else, because, although there has been an inquiry into the incident, that inquiry has been held in private and in the interests of national security the report has not been published. The purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to put the injured person in the position that once he proves that he was present and that he is suffering from injuries consistent with what would be the result of an occurrence—and I hope I shall not be pressed too hard upon those words because if the noble Lord the Minister agrees the principle he can no doubt clarify the point—it should be for the licensee to prove the contrary; and if the contrary is not proved then the injured person has made out his case.
I know that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, who is listening carefully, as always, will follow the point I am trying to make. It is merely that we should shift the onus of proof from the injured person—who is going to find it exceedingly difficult to establish a case, especially in the circumstances I have mentioned, and if the injury takes place after many years—on to the licensee, who will have at his disposal all the evidence and will be in a much better position to discharge the onus. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
After subsection (5) insert—
("(6) Where a person has so registered as is provided in the preceding subsection or not having so registered establishes his presence within the area and during the period referred to in the preceding subsection and such person has suffered hurt or damage to property of such character as gives rise to the presumption that such hurt or damage is attributable to ionising radiations as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section three of this Act then such person shall be deemed to have suffered such hurt

91
or damage in consequence of such ionising radiations aforesaid unless the contrary is proved.")—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MILLS: I understand the effect of this Amendment to the Amendment, which, as Lord Silkin says, is to shift the onus of proof, and I recognise that there are still uncertainties about the nature of nuclear risks. Considering the scale upon which radio-active materials will be handled by the nuclear power industry, the Bill already makes several concessions to those who may sustain radio-active injury or damage. They will not have to prove that a licensee has been negligent. If they register, then the burden of proving that they were not present in the area will fall upon the licensee; and they will no longer have to present their claims within three years, as is the case under existing law.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised the question of the ten-year period and, as he says, I hope to have the opportunity of discussing that question unofficially before we come to the Report stage. But if this Amendment to the Amendment were accepted, the courts would be bound, as a matter of course, to award damages to any person who proved that he was persent in the area at the time of the occurrence and developed symptoms of radio-active injury—unless, of course, the licensee could show that the injury was due to something else. I believe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wants to see established.
Such a position would surely constitute a serious encroachment upon the fundamental principle that, before damages can be awarded to one person against another, the claimant must satisfy the court of the validity of the claim; and I foresee that unless we reaffirm that common principle, the system laid down under this Bill could be abused and advantage could easily be taken of it. With every sympathy in this matter, I do not think it is possible for me to accept this reversal of the ordinary procedures of law. Therefore, I am sorry that I cannot accept the proposed Amendment to the Amendment.
3.0 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I am sure that the whole Committee will be very disappointed at the reply of the Minister to this Amendment. He has conceded at once that there are great dangers regarding nuclear risks. Even if
92
we are embarking upon acquiring a full knowledge of this subject, as yet there remain many elements unknown. The Government under this Bill are attempting to make provision to meet a possible contingency which might arise from the introduction into industry of nuclear energy. It is not a new principle. This is a case, in my respectful submission, where the Government should recognise that, with the uncertainties in this position, special provision should be made for those who might be injured by the ionising radiation. There was a position under the Pneumoconiosis Act and Regulations where there was a presumption that anyone who suffered pneumoconiosis was presumed to have obtained it in the course of his employment unless the contrary was proved by the employer. Therefore this is no new principle, and in this special circumstance it seems to me that this principle should be applied to this particular case.
When one considers Clause 5 as it stands one finds many uncertainties in it which give rise to considerable disquiet. In the first place, subsection (1) refers to:
"… any licensed site of an occurrence of any such class or description as may be prescribed"—
that is, prescribed by regulation. Before we can thoroughly understand what the effect of the clause is going to be we surely should have some idea of what the Government have in mind when using the term "class or description", otherwise we are completely in the dark in understanding what the effect of the clause will be. It is true that Clause 5 refers only to dangerous occurrences. In the 1957 Report of the Factories Inspector it is stated there have been dangerous occurrences in other industries; I believe that something in the region of 1,200 dangerous occurrences occurred in private industry last year. Under this clause and under these provisions, we are dealing with a new industry where further dangerous occurrences will take place.
It is clear that the uncertainties of proof, particularly having regard to the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made in his most eloquent appeal to the House, as a result of which the Minister is considering the period of time within which the claims should be made, cast upon the private citizen a great burden. Therefore it is, in my submission,

93
the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that the private citizen is protected against these risks which the Minister agrees are so uncertain at the present time.
Again, under subsection (5), where these dangerous occurrences happen, the Minister, at the time of the occurrence or shortly afterwards, I take it:
"may by order make provision for enabling such particulars of any person shown to have been within such area during such period (being the period during which the occurrence took place) as may be specified in the order to be registered by or on behalf of that person in such manner as may be so specified.…"
The difficulty about understanding this clause is that it is not quite clear whether, when the Minister makes his order, the particulars which have to be registered are to be of those persons who have already shown that they have been within the area. And then, of course, it is uncertain what "the area" means. Is it to be within the curtilage of the factory, the licensed premises, or what is "the area"? I think that the Committee should know something of what is in the Government's mind as regards this matter.
It seems that there are here many reasons why the principle which has been recognised in law on other occasions should be applied to this particular case. This Bill should be for the protection of the members of the public and not for the protection of the industrialist who undertakes nuclear development. The industrialist, of course, is entitled to all the help and assistance it is possible to give. He is having that from the Atomic Energy Authority; and I have taken the view (and I make no apology for repeating it), that in the circumstances it would be eminently desirable that the Atomic Energy Authority should be part of every consortium which is set up for the development of nuclear energy, so that whoever is injured by ionising radiation knows at once that he has one authority upon whom he can claim. Suppose there are several industries in close proximity where some ionising radiations have taken place: what is the area in which third parties are covered and against whom are they to bring their actions? How can they prove it was the radiation from one particular factory as against another? All sorts of difficulties arise here which, in my respectful view, should be provided for in the Bill; and I think that the only way in which they can be
94
so provided for is under the Amendment which my noble friend has moved.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am sorry indeed that the Minister has not seen fit to accept this Amendment to the Amendment, because I rather thought, from an attitude which I believed he was developing on the last occasion we had this Bill before us, that he had realised the grave implications of this Bill. I beg the Committee to realise that hidden in this Bill, which is highly technical and very legal in its form, there are wide dangers—I think we could say measureless dangers—at the present time to every citizen, which nobody can possibly know very much about in the present stage of our knowledge.
This Bill does a very serious thing. It removes the protection which the citizen now has under the law, the Atomic Energy Authority Act and other Acts associated with it; and it narrows down the rights of the citizen to redress against the licensee in such a mariner that, as my noble friend pointed out to me, all the risks of uncertainty are loaded upon the damaged citizen instead of upon the licensee, or upon the community as a whole, who are making these risks widespread. This is a very serious thing. I should be very interested to know whether I am right in believing that the Atomic Energy Authority Act does, in fact, protect the citizen to a much wider degree than he will be protected under this Bill. An answer on that point would be, I think, extremely illuminating and helpful to us all when we come to the next stage of the Bill.
In the somewhat confusing circumstances of the adjournment of the House in the Committee stage on the last occasion I was under the impression that we still had to consider Clause 4 afresh. Apparently I was wrong. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I point out that under Clause 4, which apparently has been passed by the Committee, there still remains this most curious and, as I think, dangerous provision. It is briefly set out in the Explanatory Memorandum and I cannot improve on the words used there:
"If the Minister considers that the licensee's liability for hurt or damage by radiation from any occurrence is likely to exceed five million pounds, he is required to certify accordingly by statutory instrument; and thereafter no claims in respect of that occurrence are to be dealt with until Parliament so determines."

95
A limit of £5 million is very small, in view of possible risks in a major disaster. Moreover, the time which can, and probably must, elapse before the total amount of liability is ascertainable may be very long.
Take the Windscale disaster, for instance. Have all the claims in respect of that been made? Who can answer that? I read in newspapers sent to me from Cumberland all kinds of suggestions that there are still developing among the livestock of certain farms alarming symptoms which may well give rise to substantial claims. There is evidence that there was pollution of the atmosphere by the Wind-scale disaster pretty well all over the country, and certainly detectable in the vicinity of London. How dangerous that is, nobody knows. At the time of an occurrence it is impossible to define the area within which damage might have occurred, so there is bound to be uncertainty for a long period of time about the amount of total claims. I think that the cost and risk of these vast uncertainties are to be put upon the damaged person and not upon the corporations who have caused the hurt. This seems to me a grave and major injustice, and I trust that your Lordships will resist this clause.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord has referred to Clause 4, but I would point out that I did give the Committee an opportunity of considering Clause 4 this afternoon. I put the Question. That it stand part of the Bill. The noble Lord did not intervene.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am afraid that I was a bit late off the mark.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord's reference to paragraph 6 will be dealt with on Report stage of the Bill. I think it will be more convenient if we limit the debate for the moment to the issue before your Lordships, but I want to assure the noble Lord that his point is not forgotten.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Does the noble and learned Viscount refer to Clause 6 of the Memorandum or to Clause 6 of the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that the noble Lord was referring to paragraph 6 of the Memorandum, and that was the point I had in mind. On the general point before us, one has to remember, as my noble friend Lord Mills said, that here we have recognised that it is necessary to give greater rights to the individual. It is not a question of cutting down, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, suggested. We have put the licensee of a reactor in the position of strict liability (if I may use a legal term); that is to say, a person who is making a claim against him need not prove negligence.
I think that my noble friend Lord Silkin knows me well enough to agree that I never have consciously at this Box taken a debating or drafting point on his Amendments. I have always tried to face the reality of the difference between us. And I should like to spend a moment on the Amendment, not in any pettifogging spirit but to see whether there really is the difference between us which noble Lords opposite fear. The Amendment to the Amendment says:
"Where a person has so registered as is provided in the preceding subsection or not having so registered establishes his presence within the area …"
I pause there to say that I take this as a point of substance, and I assume we are agreed that the person should have the onus on him of establishing his presence, either by the convenient method of registration or, if he has failed to register, by establishing his presence by ordinary evidence. We are agreed on that condition. Then the subsection goes on:
"and during the period referred to in the preceding subsection"—
that is the period which at present is ten years and which is going to be a matter of discussion—and again we are agreed so far—
"and such person has suffered hurt or damage to property of such character as gives rise to the presumption that such hurt or damage is attributable to ionising radiations …"
Again I take it that the noble Lord is not putting too much on the word "presumption". What he really has in mind is, for example, if the person affected has leukæmia, that is likely to have been the result of ionising radiations. I think that the usual word would be "inference", rather than "presumption", but it would be a clear process of thought

97
to proceed from ionising radiations to some condition of the body (I am leaving out damage to property for the moment) likely to have been caused by it.
If the position were established that the plaintiff in such a case established evidence of registration, or of his presence, and also established that he was suffering from a disease likely to have been caused by radio-active exposure, he would be fulfilling the two conditions of the Amendment to the Amendment. At that point, the noble Lord says the onus should pass to the licensee. The point I want to make is this. I should have thought it was reasonable that the person should also have to establish that before the occurrence he was not suffering, as in my example, from leukæmia. That seems to me an entirely necessary part of the logical proof. If the facts were as the noble Lord put them, that the claim arose eight years afterwards, I should have thought that a reasonable point that would have to be discovered was whether, in the intervening period, the person claiming had been in more or less direct contact with other ionising radiations.
In other words, I should envisage in such a case the plaintiff going into the box and saying: "Before this occurrence I was a fit man or at any rate, I did not suffer from leukæmia"—if I may continue with my example. "I was here at the time of this occurrence. After that I suffered from leukæmia". And, if necessary, he would call medical evidence to show that leukæmia was a disease that was likely to result from ionising radiation. As the result of that, it would be perfectly proper and reasonable to ask him: "In the meantime, have you been, for example, in any other country where they have had an occurrence of this kind?"—and that might well happen to-day. That might introduce, perfectly properly (I am not trying to look at it legalistically, but from the common sense point of view), a new factor which had to be considered. On that, with the addition that I have made—if he can say that he has never suffered from this disease before; that he was there at the time of the occurrence, and that he suffered from it subsequently—and I really do not mind about the period of time—then, in my view, if the case were left there, he would win.
LORD SILKIN: Not necessarily.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord says "not necessarily". But I am trying to test it in the way that one does, and I think it is right that I should. At that point, supposing these were the facts proved and that nothing was done to contradict those facts, then I should have said that the inference would be obvious. The point I am making is that I do not think there is a vast difference of approach; there is only a difference as to what is necesary to prove that the injury is a result of the occurrence.
The noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, called attention to the workmen's compensation provisions and pneumoconiosis, with which I used to be very familiar at an earlier stage of my life. The noble Lord will remember that that depends on proof, if proof be necessary, that the person had worked in contact with silica dust, or whatever it was—I do not pretend to carry all the details in my head. If I may drop into legal parlance, as both noble Lords are of my own profession, what we are really doing here is to apply by Statute the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher, which is a well-known Common Law rule, that when you bring a dangerous substance on to land you are liable, if that substance escapes, irrespective of negligent conduct. However careful you have been in trying to prevent it from escaping, you brought the dangerous substance on, and you are liable. Ever since that rule was formulated, it has been part of the rule that the liability is for the direct consequences: that is, you had to prove that the injury was the consequence of the escape of the dangerous substance. That seems to me the short point between us here.
I do not think it is unreasonable, if someone comes eight years afterwards, that he should have to prove that he was a healthy man before the accident; that his injury arose after the occurrence, and that it was the result of ionising radiations. That is all we are asking him to prove. As I say, I want to put the point perfectly fairly. He would, I am sure, be asked—noble Lords have acted for defendants as well as plaintiffs: "Have you been in contact with something else?" And I do not think that that is unreasonable. But here, in addition to removing the need to prove negligence, we have already extended the period to ten years, which is four years beyond the limitation period. I cannot see why

99
noble Lords think it unreasonable that there should still remain, in the form that I have said, the necessity of saying that the injury is the result of the occurrence. That is all that we are standing for and, after a careful consideration of the Amendment, I believe that that is the only difference between us.
If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will look at his Amendment to the Amendment, he will see that it goes on to say:
"… of such character as gives rise to the presumption that such hurt or damage is attributable to ionising radiations …"
The only point that he does not put in—and I was not sure whether this was deliberately left out or not—is that it was due to the ionising radiations arising from this occurrence. That is the only difference between us, and that is the difference which I ask noble Lords to consider is not an unreasonable or inhumane difference to make. That is the way we put it, and I hope noble Lords will at any rate give us the credit for having considered this matter and considered it from a reasonable and not inhumane standpoint.
LORD SILKIN: I have listened carefully to the explanation of the noble and learned Viscount. I would ask him, first, if there is so little between us, why the Government find it so difficult to accept the Amendment to the Amendment, or the principle of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If it is a difference in principle, then it is something about which we should divide. I say that it is fair and reasonable to ask the plaintiff to prove that his injury was the result of these radiations.
LORD SILKIN: The difficulty that we find ourselves in is that you are putting a person to a burden of proof which in many cases he is going to find it impossible to discharge. He has to satisfy a court beyond reasonable doubt.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, in this case he has not to satisfy a court beyond reasonable doubt; he has to satisfy the court that that is the reasonable inference from the facts proved. This is a civil and not a criminal standard of proof.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think there is really anything in that; he must prove
100
to the satisfaction of the court, and if the court has any reasonable doubt, they will give him the benefit of it. In my view, it is putting upon him an impossible burden if, after a lapse of many years—it may be eight, nine or ten years, or if the Bill is amended a claim may possibly be made after that; and we hope the Bill will be so amended, because the effect of an occurrence may arise many years after the occurrence—he has to prove to the satisfaction of the court that his injury is the direct result of this occurrence, then he may be in extreme difficulty. As I have said, he may not even have available the evidence of the inquiry. Once he establishes that he was there, and that he is suffering from one of the injuries which are understood to be the result of radiation, what more can he prove? He says, "I was healthy before."
If that is all that is between us, I make the noble and learned Viscount a present of it, but I am sure he is not standing on that point. I say that at that point, with all the evidence in the possession of the licensee, it should be for the licensee to show that the injury was not caused by the occurrence. After all, if one has to hold a balance between the two, on whom is the greater hardship? Is it on the injured person, or is it on the licensee? I would say quite obviously—and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount would agree with me—that the greater hardship in establishing or rebutting the claim would be on the injured person. We want to make quite certain that, if a person is injured in these uncertain conditions, even if it is many years after, he should not be prevented from getting his compensation by the technical difficulty of establishing that this was the direct result. If there is little between us, why not get together and talk it over and see whether we cannot do something about it? Failing that, I am afraid we must ask the House to divide.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would answer a question which still worries me. Is not the position of the prospective claimant worsened by the Bill as against the position as it now is? Take the Windscale accident. That occurred before this Bill was introduced. As I understand it—I may be wrong—the position of claimants against whoever is responsible in law for the Windscale damage is much stronger now than it

101
would have been had this Bill been passed and the Windscale plant operated by a licensee. I should like an answer on that point.
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, has touched upon the very purpose of the Bill. As it is, the Atomic Energy Authority is responsible for its own acts under the Atomic Energy Authority Act. But there is no provision for the operation of a reactor by the Generating Board or by a private firm. This Bill is to lay down the conditions under which a reactor can be operated and under which material can be conveyed, and the compensation which anyone suffering injury will receive.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The noble Lord has not answered my question. I wish he would. Is the position of a claimant against the Windscale authority different from the position of a claimant against a licensee were this Bill passed? If it is different, how does it differ?
LORD MILLS: I thought I had made it clear that in respect of Windscale a claim would come under the Atomic Energy Authority Act which does not apply to the operation of a reactor by a private person. I understand exactly what the noble Lord means; but we are laying clown rules which are applicable to the operation, not by the Government but by nationalised bodies and private undertakings, and the limits which are set down in this Bill are considered to be fair and practicable as between the licensee and the public.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. We can only go to the Division Lobby. It is perfectly clear from his answers that this Bill worsens the position of the claimant as against the position as it now stands.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Why does the noble Lord say that? What is he relying upon in the Act which makes him say that? I have not the Act before me, but if he would tell me what he relies upon—
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: We will deal with it next time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Speaking from memory—because I had not noticed this point, and I have not looked at the Act—I thought everyone was required to prove damage. In that case there is no narrowing of the position. If the noble Lord has any specific provision in mind, I will willingly look at it. Has he?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I shall have to communicate with the noble and learned Viscount. I have not got the points here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, because I would have been prepared to deal with them.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: May I put a short point to the noble and learned Viscount? A person who has been within the area of the Windscale disaster removes into an area where the industry has been set up, and a dangerous occurrence occurs in the new industry. Where does the responsibility lie, and from whom does he get compensation?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That emphasises the point that I ventured to make; it is the only point between our conflicting views. The claimant could say, "Before such and such a day I was a sound and healthy man"—and his medical evidence will bear that out—"and the onset came after that time." Surely, it is reasonable to know that there was no possible trace of the disease of which he complains before that time. After all, the noble Lord knows that that is a matter which has been discussed over and over again in the field of workmen's compensation.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: But is it not equally reasonable to say that as Parliament is authorising nuclear reactors to be set up by private industry the citizens should be protected against these consequences? That is precisely what we are trying to do.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment to the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Amwell, L.

Rea, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Darwen, L.

Silkin, L.

Addison, V.

Granville-West, L.

Stonham, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Haden-Guest, L.

Taylor, L.

Hall, V.

Latham, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Stansgate, V.

Lawson, L.

Williams, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Airedale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wise, L.

Ammon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Baroness.

Amulree, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Devonport, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Gage, V.

Glendyne, L.

Atholl, D.

Goschen, V.

Glyn, L.

Monsell, V.

Grenfell, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Hampton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Templewood, V.

Hawke, L.

Reading, M.

Jeffreys, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ailwyn, L.

Jessel, L.

Allerton, L.

Leconfield, L.

Albemarle, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bathurst, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Merthyr, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mills, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Blackford, L.

Newall, L.

Dundee, E.

Brocket, L.

Rank, L.

Home, E.

Chesham, L.

Ravensdale of Kedleston, Baroness.

Lonsdale, E.

Conesford, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Cornwallis, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Powis, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Saltoun, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Croft, L.

Sandys, L.

Selkirk, E.

Derwent, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Swinton, E.

Digby, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ebury, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Astor, V.

Elliot of Harwood, Baroness.

Teviot, L.

Davidson, V.

Erskine, L.

Westwood, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a very short and a simple Bill—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad to observe that I did not over-emphasise the simplicity. I shall not need
104
to spend long in expounding its contents, but it would have been idle to pretend, even before the last two minutes and it is still idler now to pretend, that it is uncontroversial. Your Lordships may therefore expect me to state the reasons for the Bill and the issues which it raises. As it concerns one of the rules relating to elections to another place, although I am not for a moment questioning your Lordships' undoubted right to deal with the Bill as seems fit, I shall try to state those reasons as factually and as briefly as possible.
Let me deal first with the existing law. Section 88 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which the Bill seeks to repeal, restricts the number of cars that may be used by, or on behalf of, a candidate to take electors to or from the poll at a Parliamentary election—the section does not apply to local government elections. The limit is one car for every 1,500 electors in a county constituency and one for every 2,500 electors in a borough constituency, and all cars so

105
used must be registered with the returning officer and carry a placard indicating that they are so registered. A contravention of these provisions is an illegal practice.
The Act of 1949 was a consolidating measure, and the provisions of Section 88 were first introduced as Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1948. That Act was based largely, though not entirely, on the recommendations of the 1944 Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform and also on the recommendations of a Committee on Electoral Law Reform under the Chairmanship of Sir Cecil Carr. This Committee's membership included the chief agents of the main political Parties. The question of restriction on the use of cars by candidates was considered both by the Speaker's Conference and by the Carr Committee. Neither came to a unanimous conclusion.
The Speaker's Conference rejected the idea of such restrictions by fifteen votes to fourteen and the Carr Committee said—I will quote these words—
"not all of us feel able to support a system of limitation which cannot easily be protected from evasion. In any case some of us are not convinced that any restriction on the gratuitous use of conveyances is either needed or desirable, particularly in these days when the motor car has become so common a mode of transport."
That is from paragraph 41 of the Final Report of the Committee. The Government of the day—I am glad to see such distinguished members of the Government of 1948 in front of me—when introducing their Representation of the People Bill in 1948, had, therefore, conclusive evidence before them that the Parties as a whole were not agreed that there should be restrictions on the use of cars by candidates.
Noble Lords on the Opposition Bench, as members of the Government, were responsible for the production of the 1948 Bill and secured its reading for a second time in another place without any such restrictions at all. I think this point is worth a little emphasis, because the Opposition's main argument against repealing the restrictions is that these restrictions are essential to ensure fair play between the parties. Yet when the Labour Government introduced their major electoral measure of 1948, these restrictions were not contained in the Bill; they were put in only at a later
106
stage as a result of pressure from their own Back-Benchers. The clause containing these restrictions was strongly objected to at the time by the then Opposition, but the Government of the day used their majority to carry it through all stages.
Naturally, my Lords, I do not deny for a moment that the Labour Government were within their Parliamentary rights in doing so. I mention the point only because it has been suggested, and it may be suggested to-day, that it is very shocking, if not unprecedented, for Her Majesty's present Government to repeal the restrictions without the agreement of the Labour Party, notwithstanding that we made it quite clear in 1948, as I shall endeavour to do now, that we regard these restrictions as misconceived in principle and unsatisfactory in practice.
Before I develop the reasons for this view I should perhaps say a word about a point that may be in the minds of some noble Lords opposite, namely, the timing of this Bill. It might be said "Granted that Her Majesty's Government consider these restrictions to be wrong, why are they only now repealing them?" I will answer the point. It is, of course, a fact that there has been a Conservative Administration for about seven years now, with increased majorities, but apart from more urgent preoccupations, when we were first returned to power the restrictions had been in operation for only about two and a half years. We realised the undesirability of frequent changes in the electoral law and this seemed to us a matter in which, strongly though we expressed our view about it, we ought to proceed slowly and carefully, and in the light of further experience.
We now have the position that the restrictions have been in force for nine years and for three General Elections—as well, of course, as for numerous by-elections—and there has been ample opportunity to test their efficacy or otherwise. Even so, we did not embark lightly on the repeal of these restrictions. Unlike our predecessors we thought we should first consult the Opposition, and these consultations took place last summer. In view of references which have been made to the recent Conservative Party Conference at Blackpool at which the resolution for the repeal of this section was carried, let me remark that

107
the consultations with the Opposition took place some months before that Conference and well before we knew what resolutions were to be tabled.
The consultations showed that we should not be able to carry Her Majesty's Opposition with us and that they would not revert to the view which had found favour in their minds when they introduced their own Bill in 1948, but would stand by a later view which had been forced upon them by their own Back-Benchers. After the most careful consideration we came to the conclusion that we ought, none the less, to proceed with removing what we sincerely regard as an excrescence on our electoral law. My Lords, these consultations and deliberations made it impossible to introduce the necessary legislation last Session. So if we are to be accused of delaying this legislation until late in the life of this Parliament, it is really an accusation against us for taking time to consider this matter and making an unfortunately unsuccessful attempt to ensure that it could be done by agreement. That is an accusation which I for my part, am quite prepared to accept.
Now as to the main reasons why we think Section 88 should be repealed. These are really all variations of the most important reason. The restrictions in Section 88, if they have any effect at all, make it more difficult for electors to get to the poll. In this respect they are, I think, quite unique in our electoral law. They are certainly not comparable with restrictions on a candidate's expenditure, because the latter restrictions do nothing to prevent or make it more difficult for the elector to cast his vote. Accordingly, unless some special justification can be found for the restrictions in Section 88, they stand self condemned.
Let us look at the alleged justification. It is that the motor car is so exclusively or predominantly the prerequisite of one political Party that its use at Parliamentary elections—although not be it noted, at local government elections—must be restricted to prevent one Party from obtaining a substantial electoral advantage over its opponents. The number of motor cars has increased from just under 2 million in 1948, when these restrictions were first introduced, to nearly 4½ million; and we all know that the number continues to increase so
108
rapidly that there is now the problem of how they are all going to run on our present roads. So we are not considering an article which is rare or the prerogative of a limited class or section of the community. And even if the motor car were a rich man's privilege, he would not suffer from the restrictions as they stand, because, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury pointed out when the Bill of 1948 was before your Lordships' House, Section 88 does not prevent people from using their own cars to go to the poll or taking with them their family, their resident domestic staff or any visitors staying with them overnight. What that section does is to restrict the organised use of cars to take to the poll people who have not cars of their own.
Therefore, even if we accept the argument that Conservative voters as a whole tend to have more cars than Labour voters as a whole, it is by no means a conclusive argument for the restrictions; and, in any event, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place that the Gallup Poll estimates that 19 per cent. of car owners tend to vote Labour compared to 60 per cent. Conservative; and the 19 per cent. would still give an average of about 1,300 Labour cars per constituency. I have fought elections for another place for over twenty years, and the idea of having a half, a quarter or one-fifth of 1,300 cars is something which I have never contemplated in my political life. It comes down to the analogy of selecting a country's Rugby football team—I take that example because it is something universal. There are 50 million people or thereabouts in England. 5 million in Scotland, 2½ million in Wales and 2 million in New Zealand; and certainly when one gets to the 2 million in New Zealand or, as the noble Lord whom I see in front of me would certainly insist, when one gets to the 2½ million in Wales, one can choose just as good a Rugby team from 2 million or 2½ million as from the 50 million in England. Similarly, when we get the position that there is an average of 1,300 cars available for the Labour Party in every constituency, I believe they really have far more than they are ever likely to require.
The next argument is that it is said that Labour is not able to organise the use of cars as well as Conservatives because Labour voters tend to be at work all day.

109
I really cannot believe that every one of the 13¼ million people who voted Conservative at the last General Election belonged to the leisured classes; and if the Opposition are going to say that all the 12,400,000 people who voted Labour were industrial workers, I will take their word for it though it will not be a very good argument for their claim of not being a class Party. In any event, as your Lordships are only too well aware, the polling stations are open for fourteen hours, from seven o'clock in the morning until nine at night, and cars can surely be organised for whatever part of that time is important, especially after 5.30 or 6 p.m. Indeed, the removal of restrictions will enable the maximum use to be made of cars during such time as is available.
Having dealt with these points, I would say, apart from all these considerations do not let us talk in 1958 and, far more, do not let us think, as though the colour on a car in which an elector is conveyed to the poll is going to determine which way he votes. A lift in a car is not an extraordinary act of benevolence in this year of grace. Finally, on this aspect, let us remember—and I say this in consolation to noble Lords on Opposition Benches—that the absence of restrictions on use of cars at local government elections does not appear to have handicapped the Labour Party. And in consolation to my noble friends on other Benches I would say, nor has the presence of the restrictions at Parliamentary elections prevented the Conservative Party from increasing the percentage of votes cast for them and the number of seats won in another place at each successive election.
I submit, therefore, that those who favour the continuance of Section 88 have failed to discharge the burden of proof which must rest on them, having advocated this peculiar (in every sense of the word) interference with the means by which electors may reach the polling station. In view of all this, it is not surprising that these restrictions tend to bring the law into contempt. In fact, they are so difficult to enforce that, as my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General said in another place, it is practically impossible to undertake proceedings with any prospect of success unless the party concerned had already made an admission. I would add that a survey of the admittedly few proceedings
110
and convictions which have taken place suggests that the Party who introduced these restrictions do not comply more strictly with them than do their opponents. Noble Lords will find that in the figures given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place on November 5 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 594 (No. 7) col. 960]. It is therefore our considered view that these restrictions are completely out of date and irrelevant to their designed object and that they are bad law. They have been given a fair trial and found wanting and should go without delay. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.9 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I am sure we are all greatly indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for a remarkable forensic performance. He has covered up with enormous skill what is in fact, a rather mean little political device. It must have gone very much against the grain, both as lawyer and as a sportsman: as a lawyer because he would naturally like to see justice done, and as a sportsman because I cannot believe that, as a sportsman, he would think it right to alter the rules of a game before the other side had had its innings. That is exactly what has happened.
It is as if one altered the l.b.w. rule against the Australians after Britain had had her innings; or in Rugby football (which would perhaps be more appropriate, considering the 'Varsity match this afternoon), if one suddenly made some person available for the team although he was seven pounds over-weight. That is what is being done. The noble and learned Viscount has not really put up any case for this measure. One gathered that it did not matter who conveyed anybody to the poll. Why were the Conservative Party so keen on it? Why did the Government not accept the proposal that there should be a pool of neutral cars?
Then we have had some wonderful statistics. They reminded me of the danger in statistics and the example which Sir Winston Churchill used to quote regarding the South African war. Your Lordships will remember that one:

111
it turned out that whereas only 25 per cent. of all the people died of enteric, 50 per cent. of teetotallers died from it. There were only two teetotallers and one died! The noble and learned Viscount suggested 1,300 cars. There was no mention of where they were; and the distribution of cars is vital in this matter. The number of cars hardly matters in some constituencies. I used to represent Lime-house. It is a very small constituency, but very crowded, and on polling day there were so many children in the streets that one dared not go in a car at all; one walked. On the other hand, in these widely-extended country areas it becomes an important matter. It is precisely there that we shall not find many Labour cars. It is said as a rule that almost every country house is a Conservative committee room, well provided with cars. It is nonsense to suppose that this measure is not designed in the interests of one particular side.
It was a quite contradictory argument that was put forward by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I could not quite follow him all the time. Apparently the limitation did not work, yet it was very important to change it; it did not have any effect on either side, yet apparently this idea of abolishing it appeals to the Conservative Party and not to the Labour Party. I was reminded, when I listened to all the Lord Chancellor's arguments, of that famous story of the lady who was asked to return a borrowed frying-pan. She said, "I haven't got it; I am using it myself and anyway it has got a hole in it." That is the sort of argument which the noble and learned Viscount put forward. I think that he spoke with his tongue in his cheek.
There has been all this business of having to wait. We have waited all these years since 1951. Year after year they have been watching the experiment. They have been watching it, according to them, and seeing that every time there was an Election a greater proportion of Conservatives went to the poll. And yet they felt they must alter the arrangement. They waited because they wanted to study the position and consult. They knew that there would be no consultation that was worthwhile with the Opposition. They wanted to consult about something which they knew perfectly well was
112
designed solely in the interest of one Party. It has taken a very long time to get anything like equality of the Parties. The suggestion is that this is a wonderful thing because the position was all right before! Years ago it took ages and ages to get the ballot; it took ages and ages to get polling hours straightened out to get any chance whatever for the workers to vote. This is purely a Party stunt.
My noble friend said that the electors were intelligent. Unfortunately they are still very conscientious. They will often arrive in a Tory car and not think it right to vote Labour; and vice versa. But I think they will be intelligent enough to see through this Bill; they are not quite so simple that they will not see through it. They know perfectly well what it is designed for. It is designed to load the dice against the Labour Party at the next Election; and that is what the timing has been for—the next Election.
Personally, I am not sorry about this. I cannot think the great Conservative Party would have introduced this measure, through their Lord Chancellor in this House, by means of a partisan Bill like this, unless there had been a very serious doubt about their position at the next Election. Quite obviously they have to snatch at any chance whatever in order to try to scramble home. Of course, this measure will be carried here. I do not think it will do much good in the country. How much harm it will do to us I cannot say. Undoubtedly in the country constituencies, where there are very few Labour cars and a great many Conservative cars, it will give the Conservative Party a pull. Our object should be to try to equalise matters and have a fair show. I have often noticed how curious it is that the great Conservative Party, which one would think would be full of sportsmen, always like to alter the rules to their advantage before the match.
4.17 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, when a Bill is introduced into this House which affects exclusively elections to another place this House does not normally. I think, see fit to debate it at any great length. But it seems to me that, if it is debated at all, some regard should be had to the merits of the measure. I always listen with the greatest attention and enjoyment to the noble Earl who for so long led the Socialist party in this country, and whose experience,

113
brevity and wit always entitle him to a respectful hearing. But, my Lords, he did not at any stage of his speech say one word against the merits of this measure—I repeat, not one word about the merits of the measure.
He had a great deal to say about it, and he scored one point—or it would have been a point, if the contention which he sought to overthrow had ever been made in favour of this measure. He said that it was not very important, or, alternatively, that it was absurd, if it was so important, for it to have been so long delayed. I frankly agree with the view that it is not a very important measure. The question is whether it is a right measure. If it had been an important measure, then, indeed, it would have been very injurious to the reputation of Her Majesty's Government that they had not introduced it much earlier. But it is, in fact, of very little importance. I think we ought to consider its merits, and I hope, if it is to be further debated, that some noble Lords who think this is a bad Bill will explain why it is so wrong to permit in elections for Parliament what is permitted, with their consent and approval, in elections for local government. So far that distinction has not been explained.
I have no idea why Her Majesty's Government thought fit to try to secure the agreement of the Socialist Party to this electoral change. For most of the period of twenty years during which I served in another place I took the view, which Her Majesty's Government apparently still take, that on any question relating to Parliamentary elections agreement between the Parties was desirable. I took that view strongly. That was the view that inspired the modern tradition of seeking to get agreement through a Speaker's Conference. Which Party was it that overthrew that tradition? It was the Socialist Party. The Speaker's Conference to which my noble and learned friend referred did not recommend the change in the law which was made when the Labour Party legislated and which it is now sought to reverse. As he said, they were divided almost equally upon it; and no doubt that was why the Socialist Party, when they introduced their Bill, did not embody this restriction on the use of motor cars. But it was a unanimous recommendation of that Speaker's Conference that university seats
114
should be retained, and that unanimous recommendation was thrown over without any consultation with the other side.
If we are dealing with realities, the idea that in any electoral reform we can ever proceed in future by consent has been thrown away by the Socialist Party in taking that partisan, that mean and foolish step, which is still doing them considerable harm in the country. I admit that I have strong feelings on this point. I was one of the University Members at the time. Some of my friends told me that I and two of my colleagues were the chief reasons for that part of the Bill. Be that as it may, that Speaker's Conference made a unanimous recommendation. On the strength of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference the National Government carried out some legislation before the General Election of 1945, and other matters awaited legislation afterwards; but that recommendation was cast aside. Now the Socialist Party, through their most distinguished leader, a former Prime Minister, attack this Bill for reversing something which was never recommended by the Speaker's Conference, and which was not in the Bill they themselves introduced and for which no rational reason of any sort has yet been given.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord? I realise the argument he is putting forward, but I did not base my remarks on any recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. All major electoral changes, such as doing away with obsolete things like university seats, and previous changes by both Conservative and Liberal Governments, have always been opposed by the other side. The big changes are never made by consent, and I am not putting it forward as a matter of consent. I merely suggest, from my own point of view, that it is purely a partisan question. If the noble Lord thinks that the abolition of the old out-of-date university representation is on a par with that, well and good.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I have always been delighted to yield to the noble Earl if he thinks he has a point, and I am perfectly certain that he thought he had one, however obscure it was to most of us. If the abolition of the university seats, a university franchise which he thinks so contemptible, was really so contemptible and absurd, I wonder why

115
the representatives of his Party who sat on that Speaker's Conference and the representatives of the Liberal Party all agreed that they should be retained. I think that that should be explained.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that at that time there was a National Government relying on what measure of agreement could be got between the Government and our Party? It is obvious that our Party were not going to give way on a principle on which we had stood for years—the abolition of the double representation of the universities.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think that every intervention of the noble Earl makes his case a little worse. If the National Government had wanted to legislate as a Government, of course there would have been no need for a Speaker's Conference at all. The whole purpose of a Speaker's Conference was to enable the Government not simply to legislate or give a view as a Government on a basis of their representation in another place, but to give representatives of all Parties—and the Opposition Parties at that time were slightly over-represented in numbers on the Speaker's Conference—a chance to agree, in order to try to get a view which, if unanimous, could not indeed bind in law but would be treated with respect by future Parliaments. The view has always been held in modern times that in matters affecting the representation of the people it was a good thing to proceed, so far as possible, by agreement. That was the reason for the Speaker's Conference.
It is quite obvious, after the treatment of the last Speaker's Conference by the Socialist Party, that that is something which can never be repeated. I am at a loss to know why the Government thought fit to seek an agreement with the Opposition on this matter. Now the noble Earl, in a passage in his speech which was humorous but may have been intended as serious, said that it was most unfair to alter the rules in the middle of the game before one side had had an Innings. Let us examine that a little. Since the measure imposing this restriction was passed, the Conservatives have won two successive General Elections.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Without the Bill!
LORD CONESFORD: The noble Earl says that they have not had an innings. Presumably, that means that they have not won a General Election. It would have been all right to introduce this measure, provided that the Socialists, who do not like it had first won a General Election! I think that that argument had better be reconsidered.
I agree that the reform dealt with in this Bill is not an important one, but it is undesirable to retain on the Statute Book something that is difficult to enforce and has no logical reason behind it. There are many things I should like the Government to do much more than the little reform carried out in this measure. Perhaps I had better not give a whole list of them, but they are many. Since the Government have introduced this measure, I think it is right that we should consider it on its merits. The merits are overwhelmingly against this restriction which does not apply in elections for local government. The reasons given against the Bill and the arguments used by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, are, I am sure, the best that can be put forward, but they do not bear examination.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the speech we have had from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the advantage we have of the presence here of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, as Leader of the Opposition, may I ask this question? The noble Earl condemned the Bill roundly. Could we know whether the Labour Party intend to reintroduce this restriction, if by any chance they are returned at the next Election? I think we are entitled to ask that. We are discussing this measure in the quieter atmosphere of a non-elected Assembly, after the Bill has passed through the heat and fire of another place. We are rather like those who have passed over, discussing the shortcomings of some of those left behind in another place. The noble Viscount is a member of the Shadow Cabinet of the Labour Party, and therefore it is not unfair to ask him, in view of the contention of his Front Bench, if he can tell us here and now whether this restriction will be reintroduced in the event of his Party being returned.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should think that even then there are many priorities

117
to be considered, and we should be entitled to examine most carefully the results of the passing of this Bill, which we now regard as quite iniquitous; and if it proved, as we now contend, to be unfair, no doubt the Government of the day would see that the grievance was repaired.
4.31 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I rise for a few moments to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I have fought something like ten elections of one sort and another, and I have never been able to accumulate the number of cars which the restrictions provided by the Act that we are now seeking to amend enabled me to obtain. But I rise to oppose the Second Reading for another much more important reason. I do so on one main ground alone, which in my opinion transcends all others, and which I feel sure every Member of your Lordships' House must in his or her heart know to be true. It is that this Bill, if and when it passes, will unquestionably confer an electoral advantage on the Conservative Party in the forthcoming General Election, in that it will remove the restriction which at present obtains on the number of cars and their use for the conveyance of voters to the poll.
I do not imagine that there will be one of your Lordships who would deny that Tory supporters in the country come for the most part from the better-off members of the community, who want to conserve—hence the term "Conservatives"—such privileges as their better position in life enables them to obtain in what, after all, is still a capitalist country. These better-off members of the community not only have more cars but, what is equally important, more time, more opportunity and more means to enable them to hire the drivers for those cars, or to employ their own employees, if they desire to do so.
I can give a striking instance of that from what happened a good many years ago when there was the free-for-all system in vogue which the Government are now seeking to reintroduce. In (I think) 1910, Mr. Samuel Samuel, who, as your Lordships will know, was one of the founders of the Shell Oil Company and later the Member for Putney, contested the West Division of Leeds. It
118
was then said, and although it is a good many years ago I believe it to be true, that he brought a whole trainload of motor cars, if not two train loads, 200 miles from London to Leeds in a great effort to wrest that seat from the Liberal holder, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, who had held it for a good many years. It is true that it did not have sufficient effect on the hard-headed Yorkshiremen who lived in that division, but Mr. Samuel Samuel went very near to achieving his aim. That same position might conceivably occur again: in greater or lesser degree if there is this free-for-all, a whole trainload of motor cars, or a collection of motor cars, collected from ones' friends or relatives or whatever it may be, without any limit, can be thrown into any constituency in the country and have a most unfair effect on those others, whether they be Liberal or Labour, who are contesting that division.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has given us a great number of statistics. I do not propose to go into these. We all know that statistics can be made to prove anything. I should like to point out, however, that what the Government are doing is precisely what the Lord President of the Council, Lord Hailsham (he is not here to-day), condemned as recently as June 8 of this year, when he made a speech at Nottingham in which he criticised what he called the "card-sharpers" in the Conservative Party. He then said:
"The card-sharpers are so terrified of a Labour Government that they would have us alter the rules of the game in order to avoid a Labour Government. They go about … saying that since we have no chance of winning under the existing rules we must rid the rules in order to prevent our being beaten."
The noble Viscount, who is a member of the Cabinet, went on to say:
"Now, the answer to the card-sharpers is that although politics is not a game, like life it must none the less be played honourably if we do not wish to bring public life into absolute contempt."
What greater condemnation could there be of the present action of Her Majesty's Government than those words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham? I venture to submit that this House, with its great traditions, ought to throw out this Bill as being unworthy of Party politics in this country.
4.37 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor replies, I should like to ask him one question. I do so because my father was a member of the Carr Committee which dealt with electoral reform during the war. I can well remember the many long hours he spent in meetings with the Conservative national agent, and I believe that it was their intention then to produce a Bill which not only would give a degree of equality between the major political Parties but would maintain equality for the smaller political Parties, like our friends who sit beside us here, as well as the Communist Party, the League of Empire Loyalists, who now and again put up candidates, and the Independents, one of whom is now, I believe, considering standing at the Harrow, East by-election. I am sure it is the wish of your Lordships' House and of the country that the laws under which this country elects its Government and its representatives should be equal, so far as is humanly possible, and that there should be no opportunity for privilege or complaint. That is what I believe we had under the Act of 1948.
I must say that I share the feeling of my noble friends on this side of the House—a feeling of great regret that the Government have thought fit, just before a General Election, to produce what I can only call a squalid Bill. I was hoping that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, would have come here this afternoon to give us his views. I was going through the Report of the Third Reading debate in another place, and there a small part of the speech made by the noble Viscount at the Conservative Party Conference at Bournemouth in 1955, on a move to abolish restrictions on cars, was criticised. This is what the noble Viscount said:
"It is—and I cannot emphasise this too strongly—of the greatest consequence to us as a country to ensure the continuance of general competence and respect for election law as something that is above Party."
I think we must all deplore the bringing of election laws into such disrepute. The question which I rose to ask the noble and learned Viscount is this. Would he not agree that, whilst the two main political Parties are closely involved in this change of law, it perhaps hits harder the smaller Parties, and the Independents, who have not the vast organisation of the two main political Parties?
4.40 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds. I have fought a number of elections, and never have my Party in the constituency been able to get anywhere near the prescribed maximum number of cars, although I have noticed that my opponents were always amply supplied with cars. It seems to me that this is a mean, shabby Bill, designed to add some electoral advantage to the Conservative Party, in addition to the other great advantages which they have over the Labour party. The first of those advantages is—
A NOBLE LORD: Popularity.
LORD BURDEN: —that 99 per cent. of the Press of this country are behind the Conservative Party. Secondly, there was a vast fund built up at headquarters in response to the appeals of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton. Then there are the amounts flowing from the legal decision in regard to "Mr. Cube", by which industry is able to spend money in support of Conservative candidates which never appear in Conservative Party Election accounts. The noble and learned Viscount said, as we are aware, that this change was demanded at the Conservative Party Conference. Very good. I believe that there were also vociferous demands at the Conservative Party Conference for reinstituting flogging and hanging. Why not go the whole hog?—or is it that this is a sop for the next Conservative Party Conference on the principle which the present Prime Minister indicated of, "not too swift and not too slow"? That is a quotation, I believe, from a squib of Swinburne at Cambridge, which I will not complete, in view of the delicate ears of your Lordships.
4.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I also have fought a few elections, and I should like to say one word in answer to the last speakers. First, as regards the Press, at the moment some of the biggest circulations support the Socialist Party. The Socialists also have great financial resources, with the trade unions behind them. I believe that laws should be respected. This law is unenforceable and has never been observed. All of us who have fought elections know that both sides have paid little attention to this law.

121
The convictions, such as they have been, have been equally distributed among the supporters of both sides. But this law is not supportable, and has never had universal support. It is because I believe that, if we have laws, they must be enforceable and supported that I back the Government.
4.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if this debate has no other effect it has certainly given me great pleasure in once again being answered by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. He has often clone it in the past and, whatever he says, I hope he will believe that I am entirely sincere when I say that it is a joy to hear his argument again.
Of the points that have been raised, perhaps the most serious, and most seriously put, was that made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He has raised a difficult point about the smaller Parties, because one wants to consider carefully the effect of proliferation of Parties. That is something which I should not like too rashly to go into, in view of various experiences in other places, which I need not again enlarge to-day.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble and learned Viscount was not suggesting that we should have any legislation that would prevent the expression of a particular political view?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not for a moment. I have never suggested that. Everywhere in the world I have always referred with pride to the fact that the Communist Party fight Elections here, and are always soundly beaten and lose their deposit. The longer we continue with that, which shows other people the position of Communism in this country, the better we are off. I hope the noble Lord will not misunderstand me on that point. The other point is whether we should do the opposite of that and create an artificially favourable position for small and splinter Parties. That suggestion I am afraid I should have to consider very far before I came round to expressing my opinion in favour of it. I am sure on the other point—all of us who knew the noble Lord's father will be sure—that he and my old friend, his opposite number at the time, approached this matter in the most public-spirited way.
122
The other point upon which I want to spend a moment or two is the reference to the speech of my noble friend Lord Tenby. It is difficult to take passages out of speeches, and the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, took the passage which was largely quoted in another place. Like him, I have read all the debates in another place that were readable, and I know the passage he has in mind. I have in front of me the reports of that speech in The Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Manchester Guardian. In the Daily Telegraph it is stated that my noble friend said:
"A strong case could be made out for repealing Section 88. It has been argued with justification that the limitation was unjustified. If it was true that the section was widely ignored, that demanded the closest investigation"—
that is the point which my noble friend Lord Astor made a moment ago—
"but there was substantial reason for restraint, for it was a matter of great controversy and it was one of the highest consequence to ensure that confidence and respect for Election law was above Party, even if it was irksome and irritating."
Then, according to the other report, in the Manchester Guardian, he is quoted as saying:
"He asked that more time should be allowed to show how this experiment of 1949 was going to work out."
It is for your Lordships to form your own views of what he did say, but I thought it only fair to my noble friend that one should have some idea of the tenor of his speech. He was clearly saying that this was a difficult matter and a strong case could be made out; at that time he thought there should be further time for consideration and he was not prepared to take action. That was over three years ago. We have had more time for consideration, and we agree that this, as I said, was not only a bad but an unenforceable law.
My noble friend, Lord Conesford, has dealt with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as to changing the rules in the middle of the game, and I really cannot think that the noble Earl has much to complain about. We have given him the chance of "best of three." He won by a very narrow margin the 1950 Election; we won by nearly as narrow a margin in 1951, and we increased our majority threefold in 1955. When one has seen this working three times,

123
I do not think one can say that it is the middle of the game, because, after all, one can never pass an Act during an Election; it must be after one Election and before another. The point that rather surprised me was the noble Earl's reflection on the countryside. Really, that seemed to me a remarkably old-fashioned conception. I have a cottage on a farm and, apart from cars owned by myself and the owner of the farm, there are, I think, no fewer than eight cars which are owned by people who work on the farm. I do not think that that is particularly untypical of the countryside as I know it.
The noble Earl then falls into the dilemma, which is quite a serious one: either he is bound to say that it is a pity that these people have cars, which I do not think he would for a moment, or that he and his Party have not the slightest chance of attracting any of the eight workers on that farm who own cars. Really I should be sorry if the noble Earl were to sit on either of the horns of that dilemma. There is a danger for all of us, as the years pass on, that we are apt to live in the halcyon period which we enjoyed so much. I could not help feeling, when the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, had to turn back to an election in 1910 that that was really the state of the country and the age and time which noble Lords opposite were envisaging. I cannot see the noble Lords, Lord Howe and Lord Brabazon of Tara, here at the moment, but I think I am right in saying that the first motor car order was in 1903. In 1910 the motor car had moved a little, but not a long way; and to compare those days, to go back forty-eight years to find an argument, when to-day you have 4½ million cars, when factory after factory is faced with the great problem (and how marvellous it is) of finding car parks for the workers who drive up to work—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I interrupt the noble Viscount?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not in the middle of an admirable passage like this, surely! I think the noble Lords who have spoken are living in a lost age and are really dreaming about an outmoded world. Now I will give way.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: All the "fizz" has gone out of what I was going
124
to say. I was going to remind the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that in 1910, when no doubt he was at college, the fight was absolutely vital. It was the Parliament Act that was at stake, and if Lord Bearsted (Mr. Samuel Samuel, as he then was) had in fact done what he said, namely, brought down trainloads of cars, he would have been using the power given in this Act to win a victory which might have been a vital victory at a vital moment in our history.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has absolutely emphasised and stressed and underlined my point. The Labour Party are living in 1910; they cannot get away from 1910. All we are asking them to do is for the moment to forget 1910 and look at the country, which is teeming with prosperity and car owners in 1958. In fact, I will help them on the way—and I hope the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will agree with me in this. If that great author to whom he owes so much—I mean Karl Marx, not Groucho or Harpo, but the original Karl Marx—were alive to-day, he would not have time to write Das Kapital or preach the class war; he would be so busy looking for some place in Highgate to park his car that he would not have time for anything else. It is really in that situation, when motor cars have come to that extent, that we ask noble Lords for a moment to be forward-looking and to support this Bill.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor puts the Motion to the House, I should like to say that we have been most entertained by the manner in which, in the main speech on behalf of the Government, he has conducted the debate upon this Bill. It is, of course, the occasion for Second Reading and therefore it is not an occasion upon which we should seek to divide the House. Nevertheless, I must make this passing comment: that it seems to me that there was no answer from him to the quotation made from the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council. Moreover, to wipe out the restrictions which more modern thought than that of 1910 decided were necessary to make fair elections—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I
interrupt the noble Viscount? If he thought so, why did he not see that it was put in the Bill by the Government when the Bill was introduced in 1948? Why was it only Back-Bench pressure in his Party which opened his eyes to this great piece of justice?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am not at all sure I remember the whole details of the discussions that went on about that particular Bill, but I think it was an excellent occasion on which to give way to the teal experience of the Back-Benchers in fighting elections in their constituencies and raising the matter in the proper place—in the House of Commons. I am merely going to comment that the tendency is to want to get back to the days of freedom, of wealth and wealthiness and of liberty to exploit the general community. We have all heard so much about setting the people free, and nobody talks about anything except the great prosperity the Tories have brought, whereas we see day by day the mounting fear of unemployment and the great difficulties that face the people in the country.
The modern application of that kind of freedom in these matters means that the controllers of accumulated, concentrated wealth, the big companies, the big industrial enterprises, will in a General Election be able not to put in single cars but to put in whole blocks of capitalistically-owned cars into any particular area they like—there is not the slightest difficulty about that. They will be able to take any district they like and do what they like, provided they get the Conservatives in. We will have something more to say upon the matter when we move an Amendment in Committee; but in view of our practice we should not think of dividing on the Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
5.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
In the Schedule:
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved to delete from the enactments continued Section I of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. The noble Viscount said: You may well believe with what feeling of real pleasure it is that I pass from the combative atmosphere of the last debate to the Amendment which I am moving from this Bench; because it is an Amendment which I hope will appeal—as I know it appeals to my own Party—to members of other Parties as well. This is the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and opinion about it is roughly divided between those who emphasise the word "expiring" and those who emphasise the word "continuance". Ministers always speak about "continuance" and the Opposition always speak about "expiring". I have listened to many such debates in my Parliamentary life.
The Minister speaks about this Act as if it were a sort of gift from Father Christmas—"Here is your opportunity. You can discuss anything you like about the administration of the year. What a chance! What a good boy am I!" But we really regard it in a different light. The Schedule to this Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance, is a list of Acts of such a character that—it may have been through fear; it may have been through dislike, or it may have been because they were uncertain about them—the Government passed through Parliament on the condition that the power lasts only a year. Every year the Minister must come forward and ask for another year. Therefore it is the Ministry that are on the defensive in this particular matter.
Now let me explain a little about the procedure. It is out of order, of course,

127
to move to amend any of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule, but what is possible is to move to omit one of the Acts from the Schedule, and therefore I have moved to omit the first item of the Schedule. And if my Amendment were carried then the Aliens Act would disappear. On that, of course, I should not divide the House, because it would be a quite impracticable suggestion. On the other hand, because I feel that noble Lords may say, "Well, what do you propose?", I have placed upon the Order Paper a considered draft of a statutory instrument. Needless to say, I am quite incompetent in the drafting of such a document, but I have had distinguished legal help, and I think that if your Lordships will examine the draft you will find that it is quite a passable legislative suggestion. Though I shall not move it, because I can say all that I have to say in moving the Amendment to the Schedule, I shall have to refer to the draft constantly because it is a sort of aide-memoire for what I should like to see done.
Now I am going to give your Lordships the story of the birth and growth of a lusty Government Department, the Aliens Department. Lord Winterton is not here; nor, unfortunately, is Lord Samuel. I am the only person in this House who saw the birth of that Department, and I have seen it grow from puny infancy to a great, sturdy giant which strikes terror into the hearts of Ministers who are supposed to control it. In 1903, when I became a candidate for the St. George Division of London Docks, which was the main port of entry for aliens, there was no Aliens Act at all. There was no question of aliens not being allowed in. If they wanted to come, they came. A great movement was organised which was called the British Brothers League—the very title would make one suspicious. We were told that the alien flood—they did not say "the number of aliens who came"; they always spoke about "the alien flood"—was going to submerge the East End, and that it was going to ruin us. Where did this flood come from? At that time the Czar and his Cossacks were rather more busy than usual murdering Jews. They used to do that from time to time, and in the early 1900's they were murdering on a large scale and driving numbers of them, including
128
Chaim Weizmann and his family, out of Russia to the West. That, of course, was before the time of the Bolshevik tyranny.
These wretched people were appearing in East London. I was a candidate and, as a Liberal, I felt a great sympathy for them, and I thought it a great shame to attempt to prevent them from entering. We were told "Ah, yes, but if you let them in they will ruin the trade of East London." Well, a sort of compromise was arrived at. I do not know whether any of your Lordships can remember Sidney Buxton, a most distinguished member of this House. He was our Leader. He was the Liberal Member for Poplar. There was a compromise of sorts, and the first Aliens Act was passed. That was in 1905.
This Act had two features. First of all, it specified precisely who were to be excluded. There were about five categories—people who were diseased, and soon. Secondly, in any case it gave them a right of appeal to a body called the Immigration Board—I do not know what exactly that was. There were two things: first, specified law, and, secondly, right of appeal. There it was left in 1905. Then—and this is the first important thing—the little infant, the Aliens Department, was born, and it began to get its toes well in. We shall see how big it got later in the story. Then came the war of 1914, and in one afternoon we passed a law giving absolute power to the Home Secretary. As always the Government operated through statutory instruments, and the Aliens Department could shut out anybody because we were at war and because we were in a state of grave national emergency. If your Lordships will look at Section 1 of the Act of 1914, which was re-enacted in the 1919 Act, you will see that it gives incredible power to the Government in this matter. That was right. The Department was needed. It went to work and it did good work and, I have no doubt, protected the country.
Then came 1919. The Department was there. There was no real need for those great powers. But, of course, you could not get rid of this well-founded bureaucracy, which said, "We are necessary", and invented a whole series of Amendments to the Act, in consequence of which they were able to pursue Germans—anybody could denounce a

129
man of German origin who changed his name. It was an infamous thing. There were only twenty Liberals in the House, but I remember that on the other side there were people like Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Edward Wood, Mr. Walter Guinness and others who stood firm for a liberal policy in this matter. But we were all defeated. It was the worst Government of modern times, the Lloyd GeorgeBonar Law Coalition. That is the story right up to date. That Act has fully persisted. It is a fact that in these days of peace the Aliens Department—these bureaucrats—insist on retaining in this Schedule all the powers that they considered necessary in order to fight Kaiser William and defend this country in a state of emergency. They will not give up a single one of them. That is the gravamen of the argument against this Bill.
My proposition is a simple one and very limited. By the statutory instrument that I have drafted and put on the Paper I have suggested that, in place of the unfettered judgment of this Department and its agents, we should set out something in the nature of Statute Law; and my Amendment sets out things they must not do—they must not exclude for this reason or that. It also provides for a right which I believe everyone would agree is reasonable: that these people shall be able to make some appeal. So moderate is my proposal that it leaves the ultimate decision to the Secretary of State; but it introduces some element of law into what is now, as I shall proceed to show, a scene of chaos—almost comic chaos.
I come now to the events which have really produced the question and made it an issue at the present time. I learn from the Press that about 900 people are refused admission to this country every year for some undefined reason, just on the decision of the official. No notice has been taken of that, but suddenly a spotlight is turned on the whole thing because two very eminent men—Dr. Pauling and Dr. Niemöller—present themselves for admission. I am for complete political freedom but I may mention that these gentlemen were not supposed to be sympathetic with Communism—if anyone is interested in that point. What happened to them? The first thing I want to do is to ask your Lordships to observe the attitude of the Aliens Department to
130
this problem, for it is essentially typical and exactly bureaucratic. When I saw that Dr. Niemöller—who is a very old friend of mine—had been treated as he had been treated one day, I immediately wrote a long letter to the Home Secretary, and it was delivered that very night at the Home Office. After some long delay, which was no doubt due lo the necessity of getting exact information, I received a reply which missed the point entirely. All that I was given in the letter was a list of times—at 12.40, this; at 12.41, that; "You say 12.15, I say 12.22." I am not in the least interested in clocks. The timing was so exact that it might almost have been a Naval signal—"Dr. Niemöller received his passport at hrs. 12.06 Greenwich Mean Time as observed by ships at sea." All that was nothing to do with it.
My point was: what kind of examination was given to this gentleman, and did the Home Secretary agree with it? Was there any Statute to warrant it? Was it something that we could tolerate? Those were the points I wanted to make. All that I had was a letter saying that there was a conflict of evidence. But if there is a conflict of evidence, let us have a law which settles what is the right thing to do. It is no good a bureaucrat saying that there is a conflict of evidence, and then shutting the office and going home. We want something definite, and the conflict of evidence really rests on one or two points which I shall proceed to put to your Lordships.
First of all, Dr. Niemöller was here in April and again in May and October. Did somebody ask him: "What are you going to say in your sermons?" I believe it has been said that that was not asked. If that is to be the reply, then no doubt it will be supported by the relevant documents. I myself am working on letters written by Dr. Niemöller to his friends. I have never communicated with him. The reason why I have not done that is because I was afraid he would write to me and say, "for goodness sake! do not make me an object of contention. I am a man of peace." I am very glad to read in The Times that he is coming to Glasgow again next year. But I am not considering Dr. Niemöller, but rather our reputation and methods—for those are the important things.
Did anyone ask him: "What are you going to put in your sermons?" If so, it

131
was a most unfortunate question to address to Dr. Niemöller, for only two people have ever asked him that question. One was Mr. Hitler and the other was Mr. Butler; and in both cases Dr. Niemöller has given a "dusty answer". As we all know, he was imprisoned for six years because he would not concede the very point that the Aliens Department wanted him to concede here—"Tell us what you are going to say and we will tell you if you can say it." In this particular case he said: "if I am not welcome I will go home". And he went home. There was no complaint there.
This was done at a very unfortunate moment, for it was just when we were doing our best to give a warm welcome to President Heuss. That very week-end President Heuss was preparing to replace the silver candlesticks at St. Paul's which had been destroyed in the bombing, and we were insulting the most famous German in the world. I am not here to criticise Her Majesty's Government in any form. This is a departmental affair, but it is putting it mildly to say that there was a lack of liaison. The second point that really puzzled the Department was this: Dr. Niemöller was asked, "What are you going to preach?" and he replied, "The Gospel of Christ Jesus." Fancy saying that to an official at the airport!—and imagine him saying, "I must ring Holborn 0041 and consult my superior officer on a question of that kind." The official went on to say, "You have been here before. Your name is in this book"—and he produced a book.
I should like to ask whoever is answering this question: Is there such a book? What is its purpose? Is Dr. Niemöller's name in the book? These are questions we should certainly ask before we give the Aliens Department carte blanche to proceed with their good work. I have nearly done, but I must express a word of gratitude to the Under-Secretary, Mr. Renton, who, for the first time, threw a flood of light on the working of his Department. He says [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 595 (No. 18), col. 1431]:
"In case there is doubt about the position of those holding Communist or crypto-Communist views, I hope we can agree, on both sides"—
if there is an agreement it is usually on both sides—
132
"that we are all against Communism but in favour of freedom of speech."
It really could not be better! He goes on to say:
"To the extent that that creates an administrative dilemma, which has to be resolved in the first instance by immigration officers, a careful balance has to be taken and common sense used."
Is that not splendid?
We were charged also with accusing these gentlemen. No one accuses them. I am perfectly certain that airports are spangled with little Lord Chesterfields administratively using a level balance and common sense! It is very difficult to know exactly what the position is. If one is going to charge a man, one wants to know what is the offence. I see an eminent Law Lord in the House and he will tell me if I am wrong; but I believe that it is common to define the offence. So an irritated Socialist says in another place (col. 1432):
"The honourable and learned gentleman used the words 'crypto Communists' very glibly. I would like him to define exactly what is a crypto-Communist, so that the immigration officer may know."
How can he exercise a just balance and exhibit common sense if he does not know what a crypto-Communist is?
Now Mr. Renton contributes one of the finest passages to the interpretation of the English law. He then says (col. 1432):
"When one enters into difficulties of this kind, one can say that one Member's definition is likely to be as good as any other's."
That is the law as it is. My humble effort is to get the position made a little more definite in order to assist these young gentlemen who have protected us from all these outward dangers that arrive at our ports. I have put those questions which I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has noted; and in conclusion, I want to say just one or two general words, because I have had a long life with this.
First of all a word concerning old traditions. About 100 years ago a German arrived here, Karl Marx. Of course, he had not got a passport; nobody had then. What did we do for him? For some years we supplied him with pens, ink and paper, warmth and light, while he wrote the bible of Communism in the British Museum. Are we sorry we did that? Was it a mistake to do it? It established a reputation for the liberty

133
of our land which was marvellous; and all the time the Imperialists were having their way, conquering India and briganding on a large scale in China. It did not unnerve the national hand; but it gave us a sense of moral pride which still persists in this country.
Then, finally, what is the real need to-day? I feel very strongly about this matter. I feel that what we really need is less shouting and more listening. People are always saying, "Why do you not have your propaganda multiplied? Why do you not get new stations to broadcast?" I say: "Why do you not find out what the other man is thinking?" To take a simple example, consider the way the American nation has been paralysed by the boycott they have imposed on China. They know nothing about China, and their policy is staggering along with no knowledge of what is in the minds of two-fifths of mankind. Look round the world and think of the things you would like to know. What about the Middle East? We have no diplomatic relations with the Arab League; we have no diplomatic relations with Iraq. We are getting out of touch.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, may I say that we have diplomatic relations with Iraq?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Did I say Iraq? I meant Saudi Arabia. Of course we have diplomatic relations with Iraq. As regards the East and Africa, the position is just too puzzling for words. One can spend hours a day reading about it. It is a great problem, and what we must do is get in touch, not with the people who agree with us, but with those who do not agree with us. Surely we are big enough to welcome them here and to work out our differences so that we may have a helpful policy. That is the last word I have to say. I am just asking to substitute a law for the "balanced view and common sense" of the official. I am asking your Lordships to give a right of appeal to the people who are turned away, and not to leave the final word, as it is to-day, in the hands of the Home Secretary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out:

9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 92.

The Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919.

Section one

—(Viscount Stansgate.)
5.26 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to state the Government's view on the Amendment of the noble Viscount before there is a more general discussion.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, does that mean that the noble Ear] is now stating a view regardless of what may be said hereafter in the debate? Would it not be wiser for him to listen to what others have to say before he expresses the Government's view?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Viscount particularly asked that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should be here, and I thought it would be in accordance with his wishes and to the convenience of the House if my noble and learned friend were to deal with any further developments in the debate. Of course, I will do whatever is more convenient to your Lordships, but I thought that the noble Viscount would like me first to reply immediately to what he has said.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, and especially to the noble and learned Viscount, who has done more than a day's work in defending an indefensible case all the afternoon.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thought it might be helpful to my noble and learned friend to have a short interval before he has to defend yet another "indefensible" case. I was going to say that we appreciate that the noble Viscount has put down this Amendment in order to save your Lordships' time and in order to provide him with an opportunity of discussing the proposals in the Motion which he had later on in the Paper. Therefore I will not take up time by pointing out that if the noble Viscount's Amendment were accepted, it would abolish the Aliens' Restriction Act altogether. We appreciate that the noble Viscount does not intend to do that, and that he merely thought this was the shortest and most convenient way to put the considerations he wished to put to your Lordships.
He began by saying on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill that it was always

135
the Opposition who put the emphasis on the "expiring" and the Government who put the emphasis on the "continuance". I have never known any signs of "expiring" about the noble Viscount, although he told us just now that he first got into Parliament in 1903. I think he is plainly an example of a continuing rather than an expiring Parliamentarian. As I was telling the noble Viscount, I believe last night, I remember in 1911 or 1912 seeing a picture in the Parliamentary report of Punch depicting the noble Viscount and Mr. Asquith sitting together in a boat, and the caption was, "Youth at the Prow and Pleasure at the Helm".
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I must warn the noble Earl that if he continues to talk about 1910 we shall get into trouble with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I thought that the noble Viscount might be more amenable to reminiscences of 1910, and I was going to say, in regard to this caption, "Youth at the Prow …" that I think that he would perfectly well form an appropriate subject for a similar cartoon now.
It seems to me strange that on a subject of this importance we should not have a proper Act on the Statute Book and that it should simply be part of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. On the other hand, as the noble Viscount said, this does give your Lordships an opportunity of discussing it every year. I have listened with great pleasure to what the noble Viscount said and it is a matter of regret to have to say, as I expect the noble Viscount knew I would say, that my right honourable friend is unable to accept the proposals which he has put forward, no doubt owing to the fact that my right honourable friend is terrified, or terrorised, by the Aliens Immigration Department!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Of course, the Home Secretary and the Government cannot possibly accept the Amendment to exclude this paragraph from the Schedule. But is the noble Earl referring to the draft statutory order which I put on the Order Paper? Is that rejected also?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Of course I am; I am sorry that we cannot accept the proposals of the noble Viscount which are printed on the Order Paper and which we realise he intends to discuss on the Amendment. We are not going to waste time to discuss what would happen if the Amendment were accepted; that is quite a different matter. The noble Viscount proposes that no person shall be refused leave to land on the ground that he holds or has advocated any religious, economic or political opinion. I do not think that anybody ever has been refused leave to land on the ground that he holds or has advocated any religious, economic or political opinion. Whether he may have been refused leave to land on the ground that the Home Secretary expected that he would put some of his views into practice is a more difficult question. We might perhaps have a man seeking leave to land whose religion approved of cannibalism. If he merely approved of it, he might be allowed to land; but if the Home Secretary thought he was going to start a cult of cannibalism in this country, my right honourable friend might then use his discretion under the Aliens Act and withdraw the landing permit.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: A helpful suggestion!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The Communist Party in this country is not an illegal Party. People are allowed to hold Communist opinions, and I do not think that anybody has been refused leave to land simply on the ground that he holds Communist opinions; but sometimes people have been refused landing permits because the Home Secretary has thought it likely that they were going to take part in activities on behalf of the Russian propaganda machine, whether designedly or not. There is the actual example of the Sheffield Peace Congress in 1950, when a number of people were refused leave to land, and there have been various other cases when this power under the Act has been exercised, not at the instance of the immigration officials at all, but by deliberate decision of the Home Secretary as an act of policy, the Home Secretary instructing the immigration officials to act in this way.
The noble Viscount proceeds to propose that there shall be a committee

137
of appeal appointed by the Lord Chancellor, consisting of three persons, one of whom shall be appointed by the Home Secretary, to advise whether a person who has been refused a landing permit and who wishes to appeal should receive a permit or not. The noble Viscount mentioned that about 900 people were refused permits every year. No doubt the noble Viscount was saving time by not mentioning the fact that about 2,600 people are refused permits every year on an average, but I understand that the distinction is that about 1,700 are refused permits for reasons to which the noble Viscount does not object and therefore we are not considering them. So that leaves the 900. A great many of these are refused because the people concerned do not come within certain categories which the Home Secretary thinks it desirable as a matter of policy to allow to come into this country. It is not a question of the immigration authorities refusing a permit and the Home Secretary having to accept it; it is a question of the Home Secretary telling the immigration authorities what he wants done. If the matter was referred to an independent immigration appeals committee, it would simply be a waste of time. If it was at the instance of the Home Secretary that these people had been excluded, the Home Secretary would have to refuse the advice of the committee and the whole procedure would be a waste of time.
The larger part of the 900 are people whose intention it is extremely difficult to assess. For instance, there are people who say that they are coming here as tourists but who, in the view of the immigration authorities, are obviously coming here with the intention of permanently settling here. If a man is found to have a waiter's kit and an alarm clock in his luggage, he is obviously seeking employment. En such a case the authorities would use their discretion and not give him a landing permit. If we were to give all cases like that the right of appeal to an immigration appeals committee, what is likely to happen? In the first place, it would probably vastly increase the number of people who try to get into the country. They would think that it would take several weeks for their appeal to be heard. What would happen to them during that time? There is not room in the detention room of London Airport
138
for the number of people who would be involved and I do not know where they would be detained, unless in some camp or prison, which would be most unfortunate. If they were allowed to proceed to their destinations, it would involve great difficulties in rounding them up and deporting them, as would happen in most cases. It would be a rather cruel proceeding in many ways and possibly result in an enormous addition to the difficulties of the Home Secretary.
The noble Viscount was good enough to give notice that he was going to instance what took place at London Airport when Dr. Niemöller landed on October 18 and when Dr. Pauling landed in August. Of course, I understand the distinction which the noble Viscount made, but both these gentlemen were given permits to land and to do exactly what they wanted to do. So I do not think that that affects the argument for an immigration appeals committee. What the noble Viscount said, I think, was that the misunderstandings or incidents which took place between these gentlemen and the immigration authorities were an example of the unfortunate political manner with which these applications for landing permits are dealt. I think it has already been said by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that he very much regrets any inconvenience or pain or offence which might have been caused to Dr. Niemöller. At the same time, I think it is necessary to defend the public servants who were accused of discourtesy and cannot answer for themselves.
The noble Viscount said that he was not interested in time-tables. I quite understand that. But in this case the timetables are relevant to the question of discourtesy, because after Dr. Niemöller got back to Germany he published a statement which, I am bound to say, was misleading in several respects. The timetable is an important one of these respects. One thing he said was that he was kept standing the whole time, whereas in fact he was offered a seat, which he refused to accept, no doubt because he was feeling angry. But it is not fair to say that he was kept standing.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have not said that. I do not know who said it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Dr.
Niemöller said it. He also said that his aeroplane landed earlier than it did and

139
he was kept waiting for three-quarters of an hour, whereas in fact he was kept waiting for exactly six minutes. I do not think it is unreasonable that that should have happened, because he was only asked three questions which it is perfectly reasonable to ask: first, where was he going and what would his address be; secondly, what was he going to do; and thirdly, how long was he going to stay here. With regard to his address, which caused a slight misunderstanding, he gave it as the Albert Hall, Manchester. To begin with, the official, perhaps not unnaturally, could not understand how that could be his address, and Dr. Niemöller appears to have thought, because of this misunderstanding, that the official was suspicious, and this irritated him. But as soon as the official understood that this was the address to which Dr. Niemöller wanted letters forwarded, and that he was being looked after at Manchester by a clergyman, he accepted that. Dr. Niemöller was then asked what he was going to do. He first said that he was going to preach one sermon at one place, or give one lecture at one place, and then he produced his programme which showed that he was going to give eight lectures at a great many places.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Scandalous!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The immigration officer immediately rang up the Home Office to ask what would be the appropriate length of time to put on the landing permit. The time before that it had been one or two days, and the time before that a week. This took only a few minutes, and Dr. Niemöller was then told that a fortnight would be the appropriate time, and he put down a fortnight. By that time it was exactly six minutes from when Dr. Niemöller handed in his passport: he handed it in at 12 noon and it was handed back to him at 12.6 p.m. He was apparently offended by the fact that he had been asked any questions at all, and he went back to Germany.
I am sorry that this has happened; but there it is. I am sure that many of us who have been questioned by customs authorities, immigration authorities or currency exchange authorities when we have been travelling must often have felt irritated and annoyed by being asked questions which it is really the duty of the official to ask, and perhaps when we
140
got home if we had written an account of it our irritation might have led to our account being rather exaggerated and misleading. I should not complain of that if it did not involve unfairness to the official concerned. I think it is right to make it clear that we do not think the allegations of discourtesy and lack of consideration are at all serious, and we want to defend the servants of the public from the very much exaggerated and unfounded allegations of discourtesy which have been made. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is a friend of Dr. Niemöller, and I am sure that we all wish to share that friendship with this man. We do not want to pursue a quarrel with him. We think that a misunderstanding has occurred, and we regret that misunderstanding; but we want to be fair to everybody else as well as to Dr. Niemöller himself.
5.45 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this discussion except that we are here concerned with the freedom of the individual, and perhaps on that subject a lawyer may take some part; because next to Parliament the courts of justice have done as much as anybody to preserve the freedom of the individual. Here we are concerned with the essential freedom: the freedom of mind, of conscience; the freedom of each man to think what he likes and to say what he likes; the freedom to hold and express his opinions, no matter how unpopular they may be and how distasteful to the Government. Everyone is free not only to express opinions of which we approve, but also opinions which we cannot abide. That is the principle of our law, subject only to one exception: that no person must express views which are subversive to the Government of the country, or a danger to the fabric of society—in other words, sedition. That principle must be kept, because when we have freedom of speech we cannot allow it to extend to those who by its exercise would destroy that freedom, any more than that we should allow freedom of movement to people who would use the road to block it for others. Subject to that exception, the freedom must be intact, and applied not only to our own people, but also to those coming here.
In our law all down the centuries, as to people coming here, the Crown, the

141
Executive Government, have always had a complete discretion to refuse entry; and even if this order were repealed, that power would remain. But what are the principles on which it should be exercised? I should like to read the principle which was stated in 1946, when the followers of Dr. Buchman, in the Oxford Group, sought to come to this country and some people said that they should be excluded. My right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede, the then Home Secretary, made this statement of principle which I do not think can be bettered:
"I am not prepared to apply religious or political tests to people who desire to come into this country unless it can be established that they desire to come here to carry on subversive propaganda. Let us hear all things. For I believe the common sense of the British democracy is such that in the long run they will winnow the chaff from the wheat. I desire that the ancient record of this country as a place of free speech where the flow of ideas from all parts of the world is welcome may be maintained."
So long as that principle is applied by successive Secretaries of State, there can be no difficulty. The question, as I see it, is whether there should be anyone to guide the Secretary of State; whether there should be an advisory committee or some body of that kind.
Let me ally this question—for it is allied with it—to the question of deportation of aliens. At Common Law, while the Secretary of State could exclude anyone from coming in, once he was here any alien friend was equal under the law to any citizens of this country. So long as his country was friendly he was entitled to the full benefit of our law. So much so that Professor Dicey, in his Law of the Constitution, said that we had gone too far. He put this instance: suppose a group of foreign anarchists came to this country and conspired together to blow up the Houses of Parliament—
A NOBLE LORD: A splendid idea!
LORD DENNING: —he said that if we could not prove enough against them to arrest them for conspiracy the Home Secretary could not detain them, and he could not even deport them, because they were entitled to the privileges of the law of this country. Therefore, we certainly need this Act and this Order. There should be a power of deportation in appropriate cases.
But what about this power of deportation? It is given by this Order but, in-
142
deed, under this Order, when the Secretary of State makes an order for deportation now, if the person has been in this country for more than two years there is a revision by the chief magistrate of the Metropolis. Out of seventeen cases which have been referred to him he has confirmed fourteen of the deportation orders, but three of them he has not concurred in; and those people still remain in this country. Does that not show the value of a revision of this discretion by the Executive? Does it not show that, on this higher discretion (even more important as to people coming in), while certainly there must be the general rules, there is a case to be made for having an independent advisory committee?
Is it not rather like the cases we remember during the war? In the 18B cases, one could not prove that a person had done anything wrong. Action was taken on suspicion. I happened to be a legal adviser on the regional committees dealing with the 18B cases, and they were all carefully inquired into before any recommendation was made for detention. Because it is not a question of an offence having been committed; it is not a judicial matter. The proposal is simply for an advisory committee to help the Secretary of State in his most important task of discretion—a discretion which affects the liberty and the freedom of the individual. Is there not a case to be made, therefore, for having some advisory committee—whether exactly on the lines proposed by the noble Viscount, I would not say—to see that the freedoms which we have done so much in this country to maintain shall be applied to all people in this country and those coming to it, so that we may know we are surely the home of freedom?
5.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I do not wish to follow the rights and wrongs of the case of Dr. Niemöller but to discuss rather the large arbitrary powers which lie in the hands of very junior officials. As the noble and learned Lord has said, these are mainly prerogative powers, not based on carefully considered Statute Law. When for two years before the war I had the honour to work in the Home Office, one could see how Parkinson's Law worked in effect: the desperate slowness of getting any cases through; valuable German scientists and doctors we were

143
trying to get out, the slow working of the bureaucratic machine and how much depended on a few junior overworked officials.
Some of us have seen in the Manchester Guardian two extremely interesting articles on the training of immigration officers. They are carefully selected and trained, but they are very young men, and like the rest of us, they can get tired and impatient; they may find the hour late, and they may be irritated. They are the most charming and courteous men, but they are all liable to the human frailty which encompasses us all. It is too big a responsibility that the whole future of some immigrant may depend on what must be sometimes the hurried decision of a junior officer. Consider the case of the immigrant. He arrives in this country perhaps hardly speaking our language at all, or speaking it very badly. He is probably very nervous. He has come from a country where he may have regarded the police and officials as his natural enemies. He has no friend beside him to advise him or help him. He is hardly likely to make the best of his case in those circumstances. Surely it is right, on the score of humanity, to give some form of appeal against what must be the speedy judgment of a rather young official at the port, or sometimes the judgment of a comparatively junior official in the Home Office.
I do not accord to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that verbal infallibility I deny to the Pope, and I am not going to say that this is a perfect draft clause; but I hope it will be considered sympathetically. During the war I saw the sort of trouble that can come from power in the hands of good, well-meaning junior officials. If your Lordships will permit me, I will tell you the story. There was an Austrian who escaped from Hitler and went to Iceland. When the war started he joined the French Foreign Legion, and got a commission. At the time of the French Armistice he was in Syria, and escaped with a party of Free French. But when they got to Egypt the Free French 'were rather nationalistic, and said, "We do not want any damned German with us." So he was put back on the British.
At that time things were going well, and the British said, "We do not want a
144
German in Egypt", so he was sent to Palestine. In each of those cases he was sent by a junior official. In Palestine, an official said, "This is an immigrant not on the quota—pop him into Jaffa gaol." There this man languished for months. He happened to remember my name, and he wrote me a letter. I tried to get the official machine working, and after a matter of months they agreed that there was nothing against this chap. They said, "The Palestine authorities do not want any more immigrants because he is not in the right place on the list, and you had better leave him in Jaffa gaol." The British had no facilities for taking on foreigners, and only through the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, and his Embassy, did we manage to get that fellow out of gaol and in a job in one of the French African Colonies, where he served very well.
That shows the sort of injustice that can happen when comparatively junior officials have these great powers over an unfortunate immigrant, when there is no revisionary tribunal and no power of appeal. If there had been any form of revisionary tribunal in that case, that man would have been out of gaol in a matter of weeks, instead of languishing there for over a year. That, of course, is not a complete analogy, but it does show the importance of having, as the noble and learned Lord said, some form of appeal where the case can be stated, where witnesses can be heard, and where a person can be represented by a lawyer and a friend.
We are entering shortly into a notable experiment of British initiative backed by Her Majesty's Government, namely, the International Refugee Year. Her Majesty's Government have sponsored it, and the United Nations have given it a most generous financial donation. Already the Home Office have liberalised the categories of immigrants who may be allowed into this country. We hope when this Year starts to see the closing of the ghastly refugee camps where people still languish twelve years after the war. We want an attitude of sympathy, and not merely of justice, from Her Majesty's Government. So many refugees are tubercular and are not a great asset to the country of immigration, but yet have children who sit in these camps and whose future must be

145
considered. Surely if we are going to take, and I believe we should take, a liberal attitude towards the immigration of our coloured fellow subjects from the West Indies or India or Pakistan, if we can afford to take in unlimited numbers, surely we can be equally generous to our fellow Europeans of whom, after all, we have a great many in this country—the Jews, the Germans, the Poles and the Hungarians have settled equally successfully. And because I believe in the unity of Europe as well as the unity of the British Commonwealth I hope that Her Majesty's Government will revise the whole machinery under which immigrants come into this country, so that there can be a careful consideration of each individual case, more so than there is at this moment.
6.2 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment which the noble Viscount has put down, and particularly the draft scheme which is on the Paper. I quite agree with what has been said; it would be difficult to work at first, but I do not think it would be impossible. One frequently finds that these schemes which present administrative difficulties turn out to be far easier to work in practice. There is one matter which I would mention and which has not so far been mentioned: that is, the immigration procedure into this country, which I have never quite understood. When some foreigner applies to one of our consulates abroad for a visa to come here he is put through a very searching questioning about why he wants to come. He is given his visa and when he arrives, rather to his surprise, he gets interviewed—perfectly courteously; I have nothing against the attitude of the immigration authorities; they do their job very well. But he is put through the same cross-examination and is asked the same questions as he was asked in the country where he obtained his visa. That seems a great waste of time as well as being rather puzzling to the individual. The other thing which seems to me strange is the short amount of time for which people are permitted to come here. The noble Earl said that Pastor Niemöller was allowed at first one day, then two days and lastly a fortnight. Why a fortnight? Why could he not stay longer?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: On the first occasion he wanted only two or three days
146
to attend the funeral of the Bishop of Chichester. The last time he had a lecture tour lasting about ten days and he was allowed a fortnight.
LORD AMULREE: I do not see why it was necessary to ring up the Home Office and ask for the fortnight. I should have thought he might have been given a rather more generous time. That happens on many occasions.
There is a further point, and that is the question of people who wish to come to live here permanently. I was interested to read that the Home Secretary, speaking in another place on November 20, gave a much more liberal view about the number of people who could come here—people who wanted to write and paint. What gave me great pleasure was that he said that other people would be considered much more freely if they did not want to take up employment. I can see that at the present time there may be certain difficulties in the employment field, although I am not sure that they cannot be overcome. But I have known one or two people, particularly Americans, who wished to come and settle here and spend their dollars here. They were told, quite courteously and politely, that they could not stay; they could come and spend their dollars but after a certain time they must go back, although they could come again. That does not seem the best way to encourage people to come and spend dollars which we want.
I remember talking to a man who was a member of the Government—he is not a member now—and I was told I would not expect it to be said that somebody could buy their way into the country. That seems an extraordinary attitude to take towards someone who does not want a job here, who does not want public assistance or to get money from the country but is prepared to come to the country and buy goods here. It seems extraordinary to say of them that it is not a good thing that they should be able to buy their way into the country. There does seem a tendency to improve this system and I trust that the improvement will be carried on. I look forward—maybe I am too optimistic—to the day when those unpleasant and ugly words "security risk" can be entirely abolished from our vocabulary, when it will be possible for the immigration officers to abandon their tasks and work on more

147
productive occupations, and when the passport reverts to what it was when the noble Viscount was young, a form of protection when one is travelling in an uncivilised country.
6.7 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the noble and learned Lord emphasise the great tradition which this country has in the way of welcoming aliens, and how much our cultural life has been benefited and enriched by contributions which many families, some of whom are numbered among your Lordships, have brought into this country as a result of the generous policy of the past. Unfortunately, since this Aliens Order of 1905 was made, this tradition. I am afraid, has been slipping away. I think it is a very good thing that we are having this discussion this afternoon in order to bring this matter out into the light of day again.
The difficulty is that as a result of Parkinson's Law there are many small officials, to whom the noble Lord opposite referred, who exercise, in effect, an autocratic control in these cases. If you can get to the Home Secretary or a high official in the Home Office, where the outlook, I think, is essentially liberal, then it is all right and mistakes are righted. I had the privilege of bringing before your Lordships' House the case of M. René Cassin, the President of the Conseil d'État in France, who was held up at Victoria by one of these immigration officers; and the Home Secretary generously apologised for the conduct of his subordinates. The Home Secretary can take a wide and generous view like that in these cases. Monsieur Cassin and Pastor Niemöller are important men, and mistakes can no doubt be rectified in due course. But it is the small man who has no redress who is causing worry to many of us.
As a university teacher I see a great many students coming into this country, university students particularly and students generally. I regret to say there is a widespread feeling that there is an attitude of hostility. I do not think there is an attitude of hostility, but that is the impression many of them get at our ports. I feel it is a great mistake that we divide the aliens and British subjects into two queues when they get to Dover or Folkestone. It does not happen anywhere
148
else. When I get to France I am not herded among the goats and subjected to a hostile gaze; I go through with the Frenchmen into France. I think this division is a great mistake. Your Lordships may think it is a small matter because, after all, it does not matter very much—most of them are not received at all in a hostile way. But it makes a bad impression at the start, and I think it is most unfortunate.
I feel that it is essential, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that there should be some impartial committee to look into the question of whether there is a prima facie case of a mistake having been made. At present, if somebody like myself is approached, and feels that there is a good case, it can be taken up with the Home Office; but even then, it is an official in the Home Office looking at the work of another official. That, I feel, is wrong. It should be submitted to somebody outside, who can say "Well, I have looked at this file and I think there is a prima facie case of a mistake having been made. Will the Home Secretary look at it and put it right?"
Only a few days ago a friend of mine, a distinguished professor in the university, happened to travel to Paris with a young Frenchman who had been turned back at Folkestone, where he had been going to stay with a friend's family. The aliens official had the idea that he was coming over here to get a job, as happens in so many of these cases. Cross-examined, the wretched man said, "Well, I should like to stay in England a little while longer, if possible, and I might look around for a job", whereupon he was sent back. He was not allowed to land. I applaud the aliens officer for saying that he would telephone to the man's friends, who were allowed to come and speak to him over the rail. Is that not really a scandalous thing? The man was sent back; he had to spend all the money he had left in his pocket on getting back to Paris; and of course my friend met a thoroughly disgruntled Frenchman, who felt that the hostility of the English was really beneath contempt.
That is not a solitary instance; these cases are being brought to my attention repeatedly. I have taken them up with high officials in the Aliens Department of the Home Office, who have accepted my representations most courteously; and in a number of cases they have agreed

149
that the representations were right and the matter was put right. But why should it depend on the accident that a person can come to me, or to my noble friend, or to somebody else who can help him? There ought to be some method by which such people have a right to have their case looked into and redress given, if that is the right course.
Recently I had brought to my notice the ease of a man who was to appear in a television discussion. He was a leading authority on his subject. When he got to Heath Row the aliens officer made him promise that he would not accept remuneration for doing this job, which was the whole object for which he had come. Because he had to keep the engagement and did not want to disappoint the people, he naturally agreed. But the whole thing is surely completely wrong. I was very glad indeed that the representative of the Home Office in another place said that the Home Secretary felt that it was time that this matter was looked into. I hope he will look into it thoroughly and carefully, not only at the grievances which exist but with a view to establishing some sort of machinery which will prevent that sort of thing happening in the future.
6.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for initiating a debate which has brought to light some important views. It is satisfactory to note that, as in the other House, this debate has been conducted entirely on non-Party lines. We find ourselves, I think, in the traditional Parliamentary rôle of Parliament questioning the activities of the Executive and the expansion of the powers of the Executive which have come into being through circumstances which are quite different from the normal circumstances of peace. My noble friend Lord Stansgate may be somewhat abashed to find that, despite his radical views on this matter, he has the support of The Times newspaper; but I hope that your Lordships, in the light of the views expressed in the leader to-day, and of the views expressed in this House to-day, will join in saying that the time is overdue for a really thorough examination of this whole question.
I do not share—and I am sure that those of your Lordships who have criticised the immigration officials do not
150
extend this criticism generally—any views that might be felt that the officials at our ports and airports behave in any way other than according to their ordinary ability. I think it is striking how much courtesy is shown despite the difficulties that they encounter. I think we may note with a great deal of satisfaction the real advance that has come into this field as the result of the announcement of the Home Secretary of two important concessions, for which, although, as The Times said, they were long overdue, we ought to be most grateful. What we want to press on the Government to-day is that they will continue this process of liberalisation.
I should like to take up the particular point made by my noble friend Lord Stansgate with regard to the application of the rules of procedure (whatever they may be) in the matter of admission or otherwise of aliens who at the moment might be regarded as of dubious character. When the noble Earl, Lord Dundee was questioned on the statement of the Under-Secretary in another place with regard to the administrative dilemma which has to be resolved in the first instance by immigration officers, he said that no one would be denied admission because of his views, but a man might be denied admission if he proposed to practise his views. He took the example of a man who might wish to be a cannibal and might wish to introduce a cult of cannibalism. I have only one friend who has been a cannibal and although he frequently comes to this country, he has not fallen foul of the immigration officials, and has never sought to introduce the cult. But even if he did wish to introduce the cult, there would be nothing to stop him under this legislation, because he happens to be a British subject; and it really is a nonsense, when we deal with British subjects by the ordinary law of the land, not to be content to leave this in the case of aliens.
I would ask the Lord Chancellor to tell us (I understand that he is going to reply) what would be meant by the expression "the practice of Communism." Did the noble Earl mean by practising Communism that it would he wrong to preach it? Surely, in this country to-day the one thing that we are all convinced of is that the general preaching of Communism is not likely to damage us very much. Those of us who are concerned

151
with political meetings know the great difficulty we have in getting anybody to them at all. If doubtful foreigners, preaching views which on the whole are not acceptable to the great majority of people in this country, come and try to hold meetings, they are certainly not going to do much good for their cause—indeed, political activities by foreigners in any country are very unwise activities, from the point of view of the cause which the particular foreigner wishes to support. I would submit to the Lord Chancellor that the arguments in favour of this type of restraint do not bear examination, and that we might well now advance to a position in which this country can set an example—an example for which, in the past, we have been famous and for which I think in the future we can bring great lustre to the name of this country, if we introduce a more liberal approach to this matter.
There is only one other point I should like to deal with, briefly. It is a powerful one and arises on the important speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. It concerns the operation of the system of appeal to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. I understand that the word "appeal" is wrong and that the right word is "representation". The fact that, after review of their cases, three out of seventeen aliens awaiting deportation—somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent.—were allowed to remain, suggests that among other aliens who have not the two years' qualification, and, even more, those who are turned back at our ports, there is a high percentage who would have been admitted had their case been subjected to review of some kind. And when we consider the really terrible anguish, heartbreak and misery that it must mean to many of these people, we ought to make a great effort if possible to meet their needs.
I would submit that the arguments against either an extension of stay or of establishing a proper review procedure are not beyond the capacity of the Home Office or Her Majesty's Government to solve. The numbers concerned are not great. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, asked: "How are we going to deal with these great numbers?" At the present moment 2,500 are turned back, and if even 1,000 were allowed to stay longer it would be an average of three or four
152
a day, spread throughout all the ports of this country; and surely it would be possible to get over these particular difficulties. In any case, if it is accepted that there is a case, the administrative obstacles ought not to stand in the way.
In urging the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and Her Majesty's Government to consider approaching some kind of solution along the lines advocated by my noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I would suggest that, as a start, they should appoint some impartial Committee—I do not feel that it really warrants anything as weighty as a Royal Commission—to look into this question. The Home Office have not a reputation for harshness: we have many examples of admirable and humane administration, and it is a tragedy that these should be marred, time and again, by isolated instances. But the Home Secretary and the Home Office, who are themselves the people concerned with administering a difficult enough law, and have had to build up rules of procedure and precedents to guide themselves, are not the people to carry out this fresh investigation. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will seriously consider the appeals which have been made to them to submit this matter to impartial inquiry.
6.23 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies I should like to make one or two brief observations. First, I am sure we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Stansgate for the charming way in which he introduced this vitally important subject. It is noteworthy that he has had support from every quarter of the House. This is obviously not a Party political question, and I think that most Members of this House will be in agreement that our aim is to provide the greatest measure of liberalisation in our policy of administration and of expulsion.
The Home Secretary has already conceded, to a limited extent, the case for an examination of the question of expulsion. It occurs to me that perhaps it would be hasty to accept the Amendment on the Paper as it stands, but I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Shackleton, that there is here a case

153
for inquiry. I should like to make a distinction as between policy and administration. I do not think it would necessarily be wise to have an inquiry into Government policy, for that, after all, is a matter for Her Majesty's Government. Such criticisms as we have had here this afternoon have not been so much on policy as on administration. I believe that, broadly, we all accept that there must be some restriction. I do not believe that anyone would argue that there must be unrestricted admission into this country, or that in no circumstances should we have the right to deport. Therefore to a large extent we accept that. Even if we accept that admission, or at any rate a refusal to admit, must be regulated by or based on Government policy—and Government policy can be argued in this House and in another place and finally determined; I do not think that that should be a matter for outside inquiry—nevertheless I believe that the question of administration might well be investigated. Is Government policy being administered in the way we want it administered? Can it be improved?
I entirely associate myself with those noble Lords who have said that, by and large, the immigration officers are doing a very fine job of work, often under trying conditions. If they make a mistake or an error of judgment here and there, well, they are human, and we all make mistakes. The difficulty is that when mistakes are made at the present time there is no method by which those mistakes can be corrected, unless the person concerned happens to remember the name of the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, or some other Member of this House or another place; and then it takes a long time to get it corrected, if it ever is. So I feel that there should be some method by which administrative mistakes can be corrected.
I feel, however, that there are considerable administrative difficulties which have not been considered, still less discussed, this afternoon, in setting up a tribunal or body which would be in a position to say whether or not the decision of the officer is right or is in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's Government. These matters take time, and such questions as what is to happen to the alien in the meantime and how he is to be dealt with are not provided for in this Amendment; and there are many
154
other questions which should be discussed. I therefore associate myself entirely with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that there is here a case for setting up an inquiry, first, as to whether it is reasonable, practicable and right that an alien seeking admission to this country who is refused should have the opportunity of stating his case before somebody and, if his admission is not contrary to policy, of having a wrong decision corrected.
I have said that policy is a matter for the Government, but I believe that our policy should change from time to time according to circumstances. For instance, we have had under consideration this question of the admission into this country of coloured people. It is conceivable (I do not think the position has arisen at this moment) that a real problem may arise, and although I would suggest that perhaps this again is a matter for the Government of the day to decide, nevertheless it is one for consideration as to whether there should not be some body watching these questions and making representations to the Government from time to time.
At one period of time it may be desirable to admit aliens and permit them to work. The decision that aliens must not come here to work may be all very well in a period of unemployment, but what about a time of shortage of labour, particularly a shortage of skilled labour and, furthermore, a shortage of a particular type of labour? Is it right that, a policy decision having been made, that decision should stand for all time or that it should not be easy of review? I would therefore suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that Her Majesty's Government might consider the possibility of either this body that I am suggesting, or some other body, reviewing these policy decisions from time to time and being able to make representations, while not having the right to alter policy.
I need hardly suggest that there are precedents for that kind of thing. I myself sat for many years on an advisory committee of the Ministry of Health, and I believe at the Home Office, too, and we used to make representations, after much consideration. Sometimes they were accepted and sometimes they were not; but I think they were always useful.

155
So I think that my noble friend Lord Stansgate probably would be well satisfied if the outcome of this debate were that the Government said they were prepared to set up a body to look into this whole question and to decide, first, whether there should be some body which would have the question of immigration policy constantly under review for the purpose of advising the Government; and, secondly, whether there should be some body to whom a person refused admission would have a right to make representations. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will give us as sympathetic a reply as he can. I know that his sympathies are with us: I hope that he will be able to express them.
6.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will not consider that this is fulsome, because it is very sincere, when I thank him for introducing this discussion to-day. I believe this is a subject which requires periodic ventilation, and I say that, having been for three years in charge of it myself and knowing it from that end of the gun, if I may put it that way.
I think it is important that I should say—and I am sure I have the whole House with me—that we have not, and it cannot be said against us that we have, abrogated or abandoned the old liberal policy which has been our pride. Since the war nearly 250,000 aliens of various countries have been admitted, in addition to between 70,000 or 80,000 German and Austrian Jewish refugees in the years before the war. That is not a bad record; in fact, I think it is a record of which we can be proud, but not complacent. I do not know enough about comparative populations to know how it would compare with our grateful acceptance of, say, the Huguenots after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, or any of the other historical large acceptances, but I should suspect that it compares very well.
The only other figure which I think your Lordships might have in mind is the one to which my noble friend Lord Dundee referred and I think my right honourable friend the Home Secretary mentioned in the speech to which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred; and that is that (I am giving it in round
156
figures) the total number of aliens coming into this country, including those coming temporarily, was 1,300,000. Of these, 2,600, or 0·2 per cent., were turned back; and, as my noble friend, Lord Dundee, said, the 2,600 included four categories that were subject to refusal: 523 on labour-permit grounds, 356 because of insufficient means, 589 on technical breaches of the transit procedure and 99 because documents were not available. That leaves the remainder at somewhere about the figure of the noble Viscount of between 900 and 1,000, which, if my arithmetic is right, is about 0·08 per cent. So I think the House will agree with me that it is not a bad thing to mention these figures, because they show that we are in the main keeping to the tradition of which we are all proud.
May I deal with one of the broad points which really arises from the noble Viscount's speech—it was considered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Denning, and I think it was in the minds of everyone who spoke. That is: is it something that can be decided without thought as to whether we should have a justiciable or executive procedure in dealing with this problem? My noble and learned friend Lord Denning pointed out, with great fairness from the legal point of view, that there always has been an executive power; and he said he realised the importance of that. I believe there are two difficulties in not having executive power. The first is that if we do not have an executive discretion we then must make the categories absolutely hard and fast; and I am not sure that hard and fast categories on which a court must decide irrespective of, broadly, the policy considerations, is the best way of dealing with the matter. I think that the advantages of dealing with it by an executive measure is that that method is flexible, it can deal with special cases, and, of course, it is very susceptible to Parliamentary pressure.
When I was at the Home Office I have stood at the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons for half an hour, being cross-examined as to why I had taken a certain step. That is a very powerful procedure, because it affects not only the broad case I am dealing with, but one's general approach. That does not rule out the second point of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—

157
that of having something in the nature of an advisory committee—and I should like to return to that matter when I answer his final point.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has been among many who have dealt with what I might call the minor official point. I am trying to reject the temptation of being too favourable towards those of whom. I was in charge for a period of three years; but I want your Lordships to realise—and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did realise it and said so specifically—that the immigration officer has a very difficult task. He is there at the port of incoming; he knows (and this is not imagination) that there are certain people that it is very important that he should know about; and he has to do his job as the queue comes off the boats. I have gone down myself when I was in charge of the service, and watched it both at the ports and at the airports, because I wanted to see for myself how it was carried out. There was no question of their arranging it for me, because I watched the ordinary line coming off the boat. I saw it done, and it is not an easy job.
I do not want to go into details about the practice of Communism. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who invited me to addreses myself to that point. He knows well enough, without my going into what are known as security details, that there is a fringe about which we have to be careful, and anyone who has had anything to do with security knows that that is something that has to be watched for. Then there are certain rules which have to be kept in regard to people coming here for employment. I think that the men at the airports and seaports do their jobs conscientiously and, on the whole, very well. There are bound to be cases where things go wrong. I think that every noble Lord who has spoken has said that the human element does fail, and we try to do our best. I tried to do what I could by going down and talking to the men and trying to give them my picture of how the job should be done. That is a small matter, because I am sure that every Home Secretary has done that from the beginning of time. The immigration officials know that they ought to keep up not only a high standard of examination but also a high standard of courtesy in the first impression that they, as representing this coun-
158
try, make on people coming in. It is now four years since I ceased having control over the service, so I can be a little more objective. My view is that the immigration officials make a great effort and that on the whole they are successful.
One of the difficulties we have to face is the question of permanent settlement. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was very conscious of that. I have just been reading in an old volume of the Annual Register that one of the problems then was Italian labour in the mines. I am not going into the rights and wrongs of it, but your Lordships will remember that ten years ago that built up within a month or two into a serious problem. That is the sort of event which illustrates Lord Silkin's point. At that time we were at a period in our economy when coal was a harder currency than dollars and it was immensely important and immensely difficult to get more people into the pits. At the moment the position, shall we say, is not the same—but I will not go into controversial matters. I will consider what the noble Lord has said, but I am inclined at the moment to think that it is a matter for Governmental consideration rather than for advice. However, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the noble Lord could find terms of reference and ask if we would keep in mind the economic position when drawing them to our attention. I am fully open to consider that point.
My noble and learned friend Lord Denning put absolutely accurately the position of the Chief Magistrate on deportation. It is a matter of referring to him, for his recommendation, cases of aliens who have been here for over two years. If I may say so, I entirely agree with that point of view. I think that after a certain period we have contributed, for better or for worse, to the formation of an alien's personality, and therefore we ought to be slower in getting rid of a person who may well say that some of the things we do not like he has learned in this country. I think that that is a proper point of view. I think my noble and learned friend would agree that the problem of dealing with somebody who has been here some time is different from that of dealing with somebody who has been here for only a matter of months, and equally to deal

159
with somebody who comes from outside and the admissibility of whom may involve factors which the Chief Magistrate, with great respect to him, is not in an especially good position to judge. I should like to consider this matter carefully but I give just that word of warning on the point.
May I tell your Lordships one of my own difficulties? It may be that some of your Lordships may think that I am old-fashioned and obscurantist on this point, but when I was Home Secretary I was very worried by people coming in here for bogus organisations—that is, organisations which assumed a liberal name and a very liberal general purpose but which underneath, as was obvious to anyone who knew, had the purpose of furthering the Communist cause and of getting people involved with foreign Communist bodies. I took that view and said without hesitation in another place that that was my policy. I am not revealing it after the time, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will remember that I was questioned about it in another place. But on the whole it was accepted by both sides of the House as being a proper policy decision in the circumstances then prevailing. That is the sort of question which a Home Secretary has to decide, and to put, as I tried to do, honestly to Parliament. If Parliament does not like it, then so much the worse for the Home Secretary, in the long run, because he goes down on the Parliamentary thermometer of ministerial reputations. But that is the sort of point that I honestly felt was the problem requiring such an action on my part at that time. I think it is right that, if one forms certain decisions, one ought to announce them to Parliament and let everyone know what they are.
I want to come to the main point that has been put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I think it was also the keynote of the Motion and speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, on November 20, used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 595 (No. 18), col. 1350]:
"I will undertake that as a result of the debate we shall continually review the powers given to us. Where changes are necessary or where a new inflection should be given to existing policy, we shall give it."
160
On behalf of my right honourable friend, I repeat that assurance to your Lordships.
On the other two points I cannot at the moment go further than this, because of course I have not had an opportunity of discussing with Mr. Butler what would be said to-day. I promise to bring to his attention, and to discuss with him, both the points which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: first, as to whether there should be an extraneous inquiry, in addition to the internal review which my right honourable friend has promised; and secondly, the very interesting conception, to which I myself should like to give a lot more thought, of an advisory committee. Like the noble Lord, I have had the advantage, as a Minister, of advisory committees; they are most helpful. As I have tried to show in my speech, I was particularly interested in the noble Lord's conception of the committee as keeping the Minister abreast of changes which he might well otherwise miss.
I hope that I have not been too discursive in this answer. I have tried to deal with the problems from the aspect of one who has experienced them from the ministerial point of view. I can say, with my hand on my heart, that I have enjoyed listening—and I have not only derived enjoyment from it, but I have sympathy with it—to the method with which the arguments have been advanced. I have worked with Mr. Butler for a quarter of a century, and therefore I can say without reference that he will also approach the suggestions sympathetically. I conclude by repeating his assurance that we will never view this problem with complacency, but that he will constantly review its implementation and try to improve it.
6.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: In carrying out my intention of asking leave to withdraw my Amendment I hope the Lord Chancellor will permit me to make one or two observations. First of all, I thank him for what, as always, was a charming and courteous approach to the subject. There is a Third Reading to this Bill, and he will not be surprised if we ask him to give us a little more information on Third Reading about his promise to consider the question of an advisory committee of some sort, as is suggested in my

161
Amendment. Finally, I observe that, although the Lord Chancellor gave us a mass of information and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was most interesting, neither of them was good enough to reply to what. I regarded as the key question. I never criticised the officials at all. What did was to ask two questions. The first was: is it a fact that at any time in March, April or August there was a question about the contents of sermons?—because I think that point has shocked the public conscience. Secondly I asked: is there a book of some kind in which Dr. Niemöller's name is inscribed? If an answer to those questions can be provided on Third Reading, I shall be obliged.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL
6.55 p.m.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at three minutes before seven o'clock.