I should like to express my gratitude to the Lord President of the Council and to the Government for putting down this Motion. I should like to repeat what I have already said in the House, that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway) took the highest legal advice before standing as a Unionist candidate, but that on arrival here, when told that a common informer could obtain a reward of £500 for every day that he voted in the House, he thought it more prudent to have the matter cleared up. I feel sure that this is the best method which could be adopted, and I thank the Government for having put down the Motion.

I have been drawn to my feet by the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory). As this may have been due to something I said in the House or in an article in "The Times," perhaps I ought to make this explanation. I raised this question of the possible disqualification of this hon. Member on 12th July, when one's thoughts were naturally turned to Northern Ireland. As we were dealing with a Bill concerning disqualifications, I pointed out that a candidate who might be disqualified had been adopted in Northern Ireland, and that Members opposite might wish to insert a Clause to do away with any possible disqualification. If there has been any misunderstanding on this matter, I am afraid it has been due to the failure of Members opposite to take any action when the opportunity was offered to them.

I do not think anyone desires to keep an elected Member away from the House for longer than is necessary. Certainly, when the parties are evenly balanced that is most undesirable, and there should be no delay in seeing that there is proper representation for that part of Ireland. I know that the Select Committee procedure is the suggestion of Members opposite, but I doubt whether it is the most expeditious way to deal with the matter. It may be that this is an issue of law, which is not very suitable to be dealt with by a Select Committee. As Members opposite desire to have a Select Committee, it is their responsibility if there is any delay in the matter. For instance, in the event of it being impossible for the Select Committee to decide the matter, the Select Committee may follow the course set in 1913 and report the matter to the Privy Council. That means that the matter is not in the hands of the House of Commons.

I cannot help saying that I think the Opposition might well have been better advised, particularly as the hon. Member concerned had such excellent advice at his disposal, that if he had taken his seat in the first place then the matter could have been dealt with then and there. We should have been in the position either of giving the electors of West Belfast the opportunity of choosing someone in his place, or of establishing that the hon. Member was entitled to take his seat.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway) would certainly have taken up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) on condition that the hon. Member for Hornchurch paid the £500 a day if the action by a common informer had succeeded. I do not think any hon. Member would take his seat under those circumstances and be faced with the possibility of a fine of £500 a day. As regards the general proposition whether we were well advised, the hon. Member for Hornchurch has stated that we were very unwise not to have paid attention to what he said, but the last time that he spoke on this matter he was deprecating his own efforts as being those of a humble back bencher. Why then should we do anything at all about what he said?

I have no doubt whatever that the question of whether an Act passed several years before the battle of Trafalgar should keep someone from taking his seat in this House, who has been sent here by the electors of a constituency, is a suitable subject to be referred to the Select Committee, and I am glad that the Government have brought in this Motion. Whatever has been said about expedition is something with which I agree, and the Government have already shown their desire to fill places that have become vacant in this House. I am sure they will assist to clear up this matter speedily.

I formally moved this Motion, and I had anticipated that it would go through in that way. However, that did not happen. I should be very much obliged if the House would pass it before Seven o'Clock, because the points that have been raised will be among the matters into which the Committee will have to look. Therefore, the sooner we set up the Committee and let it proceed with its work the better it will be.

I beg to move:

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 6th March, 1950, entitled the National Service (Part-time Service) Regulations, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 308), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be annulled."

In the few minutes which will elapse before this Business will be interrupted to deal with the affairs of the London County Council, I hope that I can give hon. Members the intentions of the movers of this Motion. The Minister of Labour will recall that when the National Service Act was going through this House, he and his colleagues were warned by a number of my hon. Friends that the important powers given to him and his colleagues over the lives and well-being of a large number of young men would be submitted to the strictest scrutiny by hon. Members of this House. I am perfectly certain that hon. Members on all sides, of the House will agree that the exercise of these immensely important powers is a very proper subject for Parliamentary scrutiny. I might perhaps add in parenthesis that it is a little curious that the members of the Independent Liberal Party, who believe themselves to be such champions of people called up for National Service, have not found it convenient to be present during this Debate.

The intention of this Motion is to obtain from the Minister of Labour a clarification of these particular regulations, which, as hon. Members will be aware, deal almost entirely with the very necessary subject of regulating the impact, of part-time service upon the employment and arrangements of a number of young men, when, having carried out their full-time service, they pass to the second stage under the National Service Act—their compulsory part-time service. These regulations have been laid at a very timely hour, since, as hon. Members are aware, the first of the men to be affected by them will pass into that phase of National Service during the coming summer.

I hope it may be possible to deal with these Regulations by what I might describe as an interrogatory rather than an aggressive method. The purpose of my hon. Friends and myself is simply to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the precise significance of certain passages in these Regulations, and also to suggest to him, for his consideration certain defects, which, though perhaps secondary in importance, are none the less to some of us blemishes upon the Order.

In the first place, I would invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Regulation 1 (4). I will read the words:

"Any reference in these Regulations to a form set out in the Schedule hereto shall include a reference to a form approved by the Minister substantially to the like effect."

That is, though a small thing, in some degree an abuse of the power of delegated legislation. What we are asked to do by these Regulations is to approve the forms, and those forms are of some importance, in the Schedule to the Order. Then after the House of Commons has approved them, the right hon. Gentleman will have power to issue them in a different form provided only that they are substantially to the same effect. As I understand it, it is a question for his opinion, not the decision of any outside body, as to whether or not those forms are substantially to the like effect. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and through him to his Department that when Parliamentary sanction is sought for the exercise of delegated power, the House should not be asked to approve one form and then that the form should be varied, but that the Minister and his Department should make up their minds what form they want and get Parliamentary approval for it. That is a secondary point.

I should like to pass to a question which is of greater importance. Under Regulation 3, provision is made for the procedure to be followed when a man desires to come to the re-instatement committee to obtain compensation, his employer having dismissed him because of his liability to part-time service. His power to go to the committee is provided by Section 51 of the National Service Act, 1948, and I am perfectly certain that all hon. Members regard it as right and proper that if an employer behaves so badly as to dismiss a man because of his liability for part-time National Service, it is right and proper that that man should have a right to compensation.

It will be seen that the right of that man to proceed for compensation can only be exercised if he starts those proceedings within 42 days of the matter arising, subject to one further condition—that if the chairman of the reinstatement committee thinks there is good cause for granting a further extension then he can do so. That means, generally speaking, that a man who is wronged in this way has got to start his proceedings within the 42 days.

I rather gather that the Bill is not to occupy as much time as one would have liked and that there is a possibility of some accommodation. Nevertheless, I think the House ought to know what are the points in the Bill that some of us do not like. Hon. Members who are not connected with the Metropolis may not quite understand the procedure in connection with London County Council Private Bill legislation. The London County Council is a body which acts not only for itself but on behalf of the 28 borough councils in the London area. It is therefore not merely petitioning on its own behalf but it may be petitioning for one or more of the local government authorities in the London area. That is what distinguishes a London County Council Bill from a Bill by any other local authority. It is in a class apart.

I think it is the case that every year a General Powers Bill is presented by the London County Council. The present Bill is not quite so long as some of its predecessors, but there are certain Clauses in it about which there should be some explanation before the Bill goes to a Committee—if it gets to a Committee. Clause 12 deals with enclosures in connection with entertainments in open spaces and the use of the parks for certain purposes. Most people have sympathy when it comes to open spaces, whether it is in the interests of those who just want to go and sit or stroll in the parks or those who want to play games. When I read the Clause I thought it was some part of the obsession of the Lord President of the Council with regard to the Festival of Britain. However, I may be wrong in that respect. Clause 12 proposes to increase the area which the London County Council can set apart for playing certain specific games rather than the general use of the park by the public.

Clause 13 seems to me ambiguous, do not understand it. It has some thing to do with footpaths in parks. Whenever I meet something like this which I do not understand my instinct is to oppose it. That is a very sound doctrine. It forces the Minister to explain what it is all about. My experience has been that many Ministers do not understand what their Bills are about, and it is therefore a very healthy exercise for them to debate their own Bills.

There is a whole series of Clauses in this Bill relating to a Westminster City Council undertaking. I happen to live in the City of Westminster and the Westminster City Council have obtained powers for a district heating scheme. On Wednesday we shall be discussing that subject in connection with the Bill the rejection of which I am moving. That Debate will raise the issue in a more satisfactory form. The Westminster City Council obtained certain powers two years ago in connection with some flats, along the Embankment I think, very nearly on the other side of the river from the Battersea Power Station. I understand that there are certain technical difficulties about it and that unless they can get powers they cannot proceed. We should have some explanation why, when they got their original Act, they did not make it, in the words that are used in connection with the Royal Assent, a "good and perfect Act of Parliament." I believe that those words only refer to the fact that every court of justice has to regard the Measure as such.

In Clause 30 there is a strange thing, which I do not understand, I cannot read this Bill. The side notice to the Clause says:

"Cesser of payments in respect of chimney fires, etc."

It is a strange Clause. It refers to Section 60 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1934, which relates to payments in cases of fires in chimneys or ducts, and it says that that Section is hereby to be repealed. Then it goes on to say in subsection (2):

"The Council shall be deemed always to have had power either generally or in such cases as they thought fit to remit the payments which they were entitled to demand or recover under the said Section 60."

I take it that they have had some trouble and that they are trying to validate that trouble by legislation after the event. There may be some restrospective significance. I observe that some members of the London County Council, who are more numerous here at the moment than they are at County Hall, are shaking their heads. If the Clause has not some retrospective effect why should those words be put in?

Clause 31 is in respect of the service of summonses. I am a little surprised at it. I should have thought that the service of summonses was a matter for general legislation and was not very appropriate to a Private Bill like this.

I come to another very strange Clause, 35, which appears to me to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1948. I should have thought that was a very solemn and respectable kind of Act which was essentially the province of the House of Commons in its general capacity and which was passed under the inspiration of the Lord President of the Council and the Home Secretary. The Act ought not to call for Amendment by the London County Council. I should have thought that the Lord President of the Council would have been sufficiently careful that when he was not here his supporters would know which is North Battersea and which is South Battersea. The object of Clause 35 is to make it quite clear what is North Battersea and what is South Battersea. Again that suggests the Festival of Britain, but I hope not.

I come on to a rather meaty Clause, 36, which is designed to authorise all the London Boroughs to run commercial laundries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have not the slightest doubt that the Labour Party would be glad to have some convenient, municipalised institution in which to wash their dirty linen. That I can quite understand, but possibly that is not the purpose of the Clause. They need to use the rates of London. I am a ratepayer and I think I pay rather too much in rates. Hon. Gentlemen opposite want to run municipal laundries which will engage in competition with private individuals. Suppose they suffer losses? Borough councils nearly always suffer losses.

Nearly every municipal undertaking is a flop, even when it has a complete monopoly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes it is. We set up a municipalised London transport organisation in London and it ran from 1934 until the other day. It was passed by a rather piebald Government and was part of the inheritance brought along by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. J. R. Thomas when they came out of the Labour Government and entered the National Government. I opposed the Bill at every stage. The result is that Londoners have paid more for their fares than anybody else in the country. That was a semi-nationalised, semimunicipalised undertaking. I do not respect these undertakings. These laundries will not be a monopoly. They will be in competition with private laundries, and they will be bound to lose money. The ratepayers of London will have to make up the loss. Clause 36 is thoroughly bad.

For all these various reasons the Bill ought to have the most careful scrutiny before it gets a Second Reading. I think that the hon. Member who was returned for one of the salubrious parts of Clapham is now going to explain what the Bill does.

What does the hon. Member mean by "salubrious"? Does that imply a reflection upon Kennington?

Obviously I referred to Clapham, which will be even better when they have got the dump off the common. The hon. Member may want to make a few observations which will simplify our proceedings tonight, and therefore I will not occupy any more of the time of the House.

I can assure the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) that although I have moved from Kennington to Clapham I am quite as happy in Clapham as I was in Kennington, and I do not regard one as being better or more salubrious than the other. They both have horrible slums, among other things. The hon. Member for Croydon, East, will not expect me to go into any detail in dealing with all the Clauses which he has mentioned. I will say, however, that Clause 12 seeks to enable better use to be made of our parks for the entertainment of the people of London, and I should not have thought that that would have any strong opposition.

The Clause relating to properties in Westminster is concerned with a district heating scheme. Westminster and other boroughs in London are very anxious to see a large-scale experiment carried out. I know from my own experience that Westminster has done its very best to meet the objections which were originally made against pipes being carried through the property mentioned in the Clause. With regard to chimney fires under Clause 30, the hon. Member will be glad to know that if he has a fire in future and the fire brigade put it out for him, they will not charge him.

On the whole, I regard the Bill as a good one. As the hon. Member for Croydon, East, said, it contains some matters which the London County Council have found in the course of their day to day experience to be necessary for the more effective carrying out of their functions and duties, and most people will not object to that. It is also true that some of the borough councils have asked for certain additional powers so that they may more effectively carry out their task of efficiently governing London and providing what I hope will be better conditions generally for the ratepayers of London.

A similar Bill to this comes up every year, as the hon. Member for Croydon, East, said. I believe that to be a good thing because it permits the fullest possible ventilation and discussion of different points of view. Even though we may disagree, it is worth while having such matters discussed. I understand that one or two petitions have been entered against the Bill and I am advised that there should be no difficulty in meeting, during the Committee stage, the points which the various petitioners have raised. I give an assurance on behalf of the London County Council that everything possible, consistent with the carrying out of the objects of the Bill, will be done to meet the petitioners.

I now come to Clause 36, which I admit has stirred up most criticism and opposition. I think it is a good Clause. I must express a personal view on this. It is a logical development of the powers which local authorities all over the country have been given under the Public Health Acts and the Housing Act of last year. Incidentally, the Manchester Corporation already have the kind of powers for which the London borough councils are asking. That does not necessarily mean that the London boroughs ought to have those powers, but it is evidence that the House has considered the matter in the past and granted such powers to Manchester.

I cannot help wondering why people who believe in competition so strongly should object to a little more competition of this kind, but they do, and as the sponsors of the Bill are very anxious to get the rest of the Bill through and would not want to endanger its progress by insisting on Clause 36, they will be prepared to withdraw that Clause in Committee. I ought to add that they retain the right to introduce the Clause either in this form or in an amended form in any future Bill which they may introduce. However, to facilitate public business and to meet the objections, which some of us find rather difficult to understand, they will withdraw the Clause. I hope that with that undertaking the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow all the other matters, which I believe to be capable of adjustment, to be dealt with in Committee.

I cannot let this occasion pass without saying on behalf of many Metropolitan Boroughs that there is very great regret that it has been decided to sacrifice Clause 36 to meet those who have petitioned against it. I know that it is not the personal wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington—

Salubrious Clapham.

I beg his pardon—the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) to sacrifice the Clause. My own borough regards it as a tragedy. We believe that we were ready and equipped to do a good job of work for our people. I should have thought that the people in the laundry business as a commercial undertaking would have welcomed competition because they would have had an opportunity to prove conclusively that they could do the job better than the local authorities. I should have thought that provision could have been made that the service should be self-supporting and not maintained by the rates.

My constituency, Bermondsey, has had a laundry service for 100 years. It was instituted by the Conservative Party of that day. I have looked at the records and I find that the mayor of Bermondsey was a Conservative, and in introducing the scheme he talked about the great need for the laundry service and prayed that the people would use it. Today we are still restricted from doing what we believe to be the fundamental duty of an authority in this matter, that is, collecting and delivering. I do not know what experience the hon. Member for Croydon. East (Sir H. Williams) has had. He speaks about Bills which he cannot read and cannot understand and says that if he cannot understand them, he always votes against them. It seems to me that much depends upon the intelligence of the person reading the Bill.

There are hundreds of people in Bermondsey who cannot afford to send their laundry to commercial laundries. We have gone into the figures very carefully, and we estimate that 75 per cent. of the people of my borough cannot afford to send their laundry to commercial laundries. Last year, by means of perambulators and so on, 62,000 people pushed their laundry through the streets of Bermondsey to our own public laundry—by law we are not allowed to collect or deliver the laundry—and we put that laundry through our machines and they waited and carried it home. The hon. Member for Croydon, East, approves of that. He says we are now entering into competition. I will give him some figures about competition and economic prices which he ought to have known before he made that argument.

The cost today for the completed laundry of a family of five is estimated by my council to be about £1 a week. In Bermondsey that represents one-sixth of the average income. The average price of the commercial firms for "bagwash," as we term it—the "posh" name is "hydrocleaning"—is 2s. 3 ½. for 17 lbs. My council are doing hydro-cleaning at 1s. 9d. for 28 lbs. Consequently we say that we should be allowed to collect and deliver this laundry in our own vans, but we are denied the right to do that because of petitions. Petitions by whom? People who already have a monopoly of it: people who will not allow councils like my own to go into competition. I say in this House that it is despicable and deplorable that we are denied this right.

I apologise for intervening in a London County Council matter, and I do so not because I am concerned with the merits or demerits of this Bill, but because it represents legislative procedure at its worst. I deplore it when I find petitions against Private Bills. I thought there was a tender interest on the benches opposite for the rights of local authorities. I have heard speech after speech about the attitude of this Government, which hon. Members opposite say is taking away the powers of the local authorities. Here is an instance of the largest local authority in the country putting into a Bill the things which it feels it ought to have power to do, and this is the place in which the legislation of this land ought to be determined. But, of course, under this procedure it is not being determined in this House, because someone who has a vested interest in opposing a certain piece of legislation, petitions against the Bill.

I object to the House of Commons having no right in this matter. In view of the arrangement reached between the sponsors of the Bill and the petitioners, this question has been removed from the ambit of this House, and therefore we cannot now determine whether this is a good bill or a bad Bill. That is bad practice. It is a shocking business. I am sorry that the London County Council have acquiesced in this—[An HON. MEMBER: "They had to do it."]—but I realise that they had to do this or they would not get the Bill. It is either having 75 per cent. of what they want or nothing at all.

A condition of sale.

It is blackmail, and I hope that soon this House will review its procedure in connection with Private Bills. I hope that we shall have an opportunity of deciding these issues here in this House; not at the back of the Chair or in some room in the precincts of Westminster where petitioners and sponsors of the Bills are brought together and some common bargaining is done as to whether Clause I shall stand or Clause 2. It is bad legislation, it is bad for the country, and I am sorry that in this House the London County Council have had to give way.

I am sorry that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) in which he stated the case of the London County Council. I understand that the National Joint Council of Chiropodists are disturbed about the contents of Clause 32. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain to me whether paragraph (a)—

"requiring persons carrying on establishments for massage or special treatment to make scales of the fees …"

and to put them on display will apply to all kinds of different professions. Will the dentists, for instance, come under the heading of special treatment? Since I know that a petition has been lodged, I will leave it there, hoping that those responsible for the Bill will give due consideration to the case of the chiropodists, who do not want to feel that they are losing professional status in this regard.

I support what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and Perry Bar (Mr. Poole). I also much regret that those who represent the London County Council in this House have felt it necessary as a result of the petitions presented, to withdraw Clause 36 in Committee. I realise that on this occasion it is too late for any of us in this House to do anything about it, but I hope that the L.C.C. will pursue their attempt to obtain powers for the Metropolitan Boroughs of London to provide these laundry facilities. I hope they will include a Clause to this effect in their General Powers Bill next year, and so give this House an opportunity of dealing with it on its merits.

Furthermore, I hope that we may find some other opportunity in this House. Earlier today we had a discussion about Private Members' time. This is precisely the kind of thing which, if the opportunity were available for Private Members' Bills, might usefully be a subject for testing opinion in the House.

The hon. Member supported the Government.

I supported the Government on the hon. Member's Amendment but I have no doubt that, if this subject were left to a free vote of the House, and if the L.C.C. were not placed in the situation of having to surrender this Clause to make sure of carrying the whole Bill, it would ensure local authorities being given these powers. There is a wide demand not only among the people of Bermondsey, but in my own borough of Islington and other London boroughs that local authorities should have power to provide these laundry facilities. These are precisely the powers which a municipal authority should have. Nowadays a great many powers of one kind or another are being taken away from local authorities, but this is precisely the kind of function which they are well equipped to carry out, and could carry out, to the great advantage of their citizens. I hope, therefore, that the L.C.C. will pursue their attempt to give the Metropolitan Boroughs these powers.

With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am glad to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). As to the references to petitions, I was totally unaware that this point was mentioned in the Debate. I was not aware that any petition had been presented against this Bill. The decision of my hon. Friends and myself to oppose it was taken before the General Election when I was not a Member of Parliament. I have had no communication with any body other than communications with Members of Parliament and the correspondence I had with the agents acting on behalf of the L.C.C. So all the reference to petitions has no reference to the actions taken by my hon. Friends and myself in this House.

When the Debate upon this Motion was interrupted to per mit a genial discussion about what should be done with dirty linen in the County of London, I was on the point which I think is the point of greatest substance on this Motion. The Minister of Labour was then present and was taking a note of the matter. This is now in the possession of his Parliamentary Secretary, and perhaps I may take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Gentleman on being about to make his debut from the Box. I would add to those congratulations my own pleasure that he is likely to be able to do so upon, a not particularly controversial occasion.

The point of substance arises under Regulation 3 which deals with the procedure to be followed when a man is dismissed by his employer who wants to get rid of him because he does not like his part-time National Service obligations. The right of the man to proceed is given to him by Section 51 of the National Service Act, 1948. What seems to me objectionable is that under these regulations the aggrieved man must, subject to the right of the chairman of the reinstatement committee to grant further time, put in his claim within 42 days. That is a very rigid and narrow limitation, and it seems to be quite inappropriate where, as here, the remedy which the man will claim is, not reinstatement, but damages or, as it is called in the regulations, compensation.

If the man were to sue his employer at law on grounds of wrongful dismissal he would have, under the prevailing Limitation Acts, six years in which to bring his proceedings, unless he had the misfortune to sue a public authority, in which case the period would be one year. Against that, in this particular case he is limited to 42 days, and some hardship may very well arise if this is insisted upon. It is difficult even for hon. Members to be fully conversant with the law, which is changed with the assistance of some 3,000 statutory instruments a year, and it is really quite absurd to expect that every man performing part-time service under the Act will know within 42 days that he has these rights.

I am perfectly certain that the hon. Gentleman when he replies will say that notices informing them of these rights are given to the men. I hope and believe that that is the case. But it is quite a different thing for a man to be given a notice and to make quite sure that he will read and understand it. I cannot see why it is necessary to limit the period during which he can put in his claim for these damages to the very narrow period of 42 days. I do not think that that gives him time to inform himself of the matter and, perhaps, to take legal advice. There may be some explanation which the hon. Gentleman will give, but in the absence of such an explanation this provision seems to me to be objectionable.

There are other parts of the Regulations which I would venture to criticise, not so much for what they do but for the obscurity as to what they are intended to do. In particular I would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to regulation 5 (b) (i), which deals with what is to happen to the contractual relations of employer and employee when they are interfered with by the National Service obligation of the latter. This provision seeks, quite properly, to relieve the parties to the contract of employment of

"obligation under the contract …"

relating to

"payment or remuneration, the performance of work, or the provision of work, maintenance (including medical or surgical treatment) or instruction."

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what remains. The only thing I can think of is pension rights. It is a little difficult to speculate as to what other things remain under the contract, but no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary, with the resources of his Department behind him, will be able to give the answer.

Sub-paragraphs (b) (ii) and (iii) of the same Regulation are a trifle confusing. Sub-paragraph (ii), as far as I can understand it, seeks to provide that where a contract is for a definite period and is interrupted by National Service, it shall be prolonged for the same period as the period of the interruption. On a closer reading, however, there appear to be two alternative possibilities, and I cannot understand clearly what is the difference between those two alternatives. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to clear this up.

I am equally not at all clear as to what evil paragraph (2) of regulation 5 is designed to provide against. It says:

"Nothing in this Regulation shall confer rupon any employer authority to make any contract or arrangement with reference to the period of training which he is not authorised to make under any power already possessed by him."

What is contemplated there? On reading the Regulation I cannot see any provision which could possibly provide for any additional power being thereby conferred upon an employer. I cannot see what evil it is intended to guard against. No doubt those who draft these Regulations had something in mind when they inserted this paragraph. Perhaps, therefore, it will be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to clear this up also.

Those are the principal points, and I should like to make one general comment. It is extremely important when regulations of this sort are being made that they should not only be just, but that they should be comprehensible. They are designed to be understood by a large number of men, most of them in the nature of things young men and without that knowledge of procedure and drafting of regulations and Acts of Parliament which is forced upon hon. Members in this House in greater or lesser degree as the years pass. I think that those hon. Members who have the regulations in front of them will agree that even to them there are passages whose intention and purport are not immediately obvious.

It would, therefore, serve a very useful purpose if the Parliamentary Secretary would not only explain them to the House, but would take such steps as are possible to secure that they are clearly explained to those affected by them. Quite frankly, the explanatory note at the back of the regulations is no clearer to me than are the regulations. It gives admirably their general intention. It does not give with any precision their detailed effect, and for this reason a useful purpose will be served, not only by an explanation to this House, but by an explanation to the men affected.

Finally, I come to the general point which I wish to raise. I do not think the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will dispute that it is right that at this time, when part-time service on a compulsory basis will shortly come into effect, this House should have the opportunity to debate these Regulations. I have sought to discuss them in a friendly and interrogatory way. I make no apology, nor do my hon. Friends, for putting down the Motion, since the importance of the matter is such that it seems to me quite wrong that these Regulations should take effect without this House of Commons, on whose authority they are based, having the opportunity to discuss them.

I beg formally to second the Motion.

I very much appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) presented the Motion, and I apologise for not having been in my place when he started his speech. It seems to me that the whole point in his speech was not to challenge the substance of the Regulations which have been laid before the House by my right hon. Friend, but rather to get questions of detail—which, I agree, may be of importance—put more clearly to the House.

The first point which the hon. Member raised related to paragraph (4) of Regulation 1. He seemed to be under the impression that to include these words in the Regulation was to give my right hon. Friend a free hand in altering substantially the content of the form referred to, without having to come back to this House in order to do so. I assure him that is not the case. If there were to be any substantial alteration in the form, it would be incumbent upon my right hon. Friend to come to this House for permission to alter it. Actually he has in mind that it may be necessary to alter, say, the numbering of the form, or it may be necessary to alter the order of the questions laid down in the form. It is on questions of that type that my right hon. Friend wants a free hand, but, if there were to be any substantial alteration, any substantial difference in the form, he would have to return to this House for permission so to alter it.

There is perhaps an even more important aspect, and I am sure this point will appeal to the hon. Member, that by leaving the wording as it now is my right hon. Friend could accept a written application from the individual, without it necessarily being upon the form, so long as the written application contained the essential matter which is in the form. That gives greater liberty to the person concerned. He may feel he is freer than if he had to lay the form itself and if any failure to do so would mean that he would be disqualified. The hon. Member will agree that in that way we are giving greater freedom to the person concerned and it is necessary that these words should remain.

This is not by any means a new provision in Regulations. A like provision has appeared in other Regulations, not necessarily connected with this Ministry. For example, it appears in the National Service (Miscellaneous) Regulations and in the Re-instatement in Civil Employment (Procedure) Regulations, which have been approved by Parliament. I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel that, far from arguing for any wider powers, my right hon. Friend is, on the contrary, safeguarding the interests of those who will make the applications and is fortified by the precedents I have described.

I do not think the hon. Member raised any specific point upon Regulation 2, which prescribes the manner in which a man can apply for the cancellation or variation of a notice specifying his liability for part-time service, either on the ground that he is not liable to do any part-time service, or that he is liable to do a shorter period than that specified, in the notice. I turn to Regulation 3. The House will be aware that Section 51 of the National Service Act, 1948, provides that if an employer terminates the employment of an employee solely, or mainly, because of his liability to perform part-time service, the employee is, entitled to recover as compensation from his employer a sum not exceeding five weeks pay.

The hon. Member has raised the question of the time factor in making the application. I know that in the last analysis these questions are a matter of opinion. My right hon. Friend and believe that the time given, six weeks, is quite a generous period. It was made as long as six weeks to allow for the possibility of the young man concerned not being able to attend to this matter until after he had come back from his period of training, a period which cannot exceed three weeks. The House will be aware that in addition to the six weeks-we propose, the chairman of the reinstatement committee has the option in exceptional cases, such as illness, to grant an extension beyond six weeks. I believe that proviso will be used generously when exceptional cases come before a committee.

I wish the House to note particularly that the period laid down in the 1948 Act within which a man may apply for reinstatement after his whole-time service has been completed is before the second Monday after the end of his service—in other words, a period between a week and a fortnight.

Surely there is all the difference in the world between having a short time limit when a man is asked to be reinstated in a job and this case where it is merely a question of going for damages?

Apart from exceptional cases, such as sickness, I do not see any particular reason why a man cannot determine his rights and make his application within a period of six weeks, especially with the proviso that the chairman of the committee has the right to extend the period beyond six weeks. I agree that it is a question of opinion, but I believe the six weeks is ample for our purpose.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said is quite contrary to the policy of Parliament over a great many years in providing a much longer period of years of limitation, up to six years in the case of private employers?

This is a man who has been dismissed by an employer. He has a six weeks period in which to put his case that the reason for his dismissal is in connection with his call up for part-time service. I believe that the six weeks period, especially when we consider that on return to civil life the man will go to the labour exchange and can be informed, if he does not know, of this provision, is ample security, especially as the six weeks limitation is not dogmatic in the sense that there can be no extension. If the man can prove that for some good reason, or a reason seeming good to the chairman of the committee, he could not have made his application within six weeks, the six weeks would not be considered final.

Regulation 4 simply lays down that the procedure to be followed by a reinstatement committee in connection with such an application and procedure in connection with appeals to the umpire on such applications shall, subject to necessary adjustments, be precisely the same as procedure in connection with applications for reinstatement. The hon. Member referred to Regulation 5. This is designed to secure in a commonsense way the fair adjustment of contracts of service, or apprenticeship, affected by call up for annual training. That training cannot exceed 21 days in one year and will normally be for a period of two weeks. In its broad effect it means that the employee and the employer who have made arrangements between themselves to deal with any or all the points arising can maintain those agreements. In other words, that would supervene over any of these regulations. Where, however, there is no arrangement catering for such a contingency as the calling up of a person for two or three weeks for part-time service, these Regulations would obtain.

We relieve the contracting parties of the obligations under any contract relating either to the performance of work, the payment of remuneration, the provision of work, the provision of maintenance, including medical or surgical treatment, or the provision of instruction. In the cases in which the contract is for a fixed period the period of the contract is extended by the period of training, or, where the contract is due to terminate during the period of training, by a period equal to so much of the period of the contract as was unexpired at the beginning of training. That extension naturally has to be treated as beginning when the contract would otherwise come to an end.

I assure the House that my right hon. Friend has not sought to impose restrictions in any way. He has consulted both sides of industry on these Regulations before laying them before the House. For instance, he sought the advice of the National Joint Advisory Council on the contents of these Regulations. I am sure it would please the House to know that both sides of that council, which as we know contains eminent men both from the employers' and employees' sides of industry, having considered these regulations in great detail at their meetings, have given them their approval. I hope that I have covered the main points which have been raised tonight. Having done so, I trust that the House will agree to these Regulations.

I wish first to offer our felicitations to the Parliamentary Secretary on having successfully negotiated his first and rather tricky hurdle. I do not think that the Ministry, for which I have, as he knows, a strong affection, has been quite so clever as usual in the wording of their Explanatory Note. I find the Regulations themselves more easy to understand than the explanatory note, but that is by the way. I should like further to congratulate the hon. Member because he has moved his constituency to that of our old friend in this House, Sir Robert Young, of whom all of us on both sides of the House were very fond. As it happens to be a constituency which my grandfather fought in the Liberal interest 70 years ago and was very properly defeated each time by the Conservatives, I have a personal interest in it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) spoke about Regulation 3 and the period of six weeks in which the applicant had to make his application for compensation for wrongful dismissal. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Ministry should watch this matter, and, if at any time it was found that six weeks was too short a period, should not hesitate to come to the House and ask for an extension.

indicated assent.

I have no further comments to make on these Regulations, which are designed to meet an obvious need. I conclude by again wishing the hon. Gentleman well, especially in the valuable non-controversial parts of his work at the Ministry, in which I know he will find enjoyment.

In view in particular of the assurance given physically by the vertical movements of the Parliamentary Secretary's head, in conjunction with similar movements by his right hon. Friend, that the serious point of substance in connection with Regulation 3 will be watched, and in view of the most lucid explanation of the Regulations which the Parliamentary Secretary has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

It is obvious to me, as a very new Member of this House, bearing in mind the happenings of last week and the time at which this Adjournment Motion has been reached tonight, that anything can happen. When I came here today hon. Members much more senior than I greeted me with the cheerful news that the Adjournment might not be reached until about one or two o'clock tomorrow morning. I am glad that I have been much more fortunate, and I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for having been kind enough to come to the House at this time.

When I looked at the various subjects down for the Adjournment at the time I put down my own, it seemed to me that mine was very secondary to the others in importance. But I realise that this House stands for the fair treatment of minorities and that this country is noted throughout the world for its treatment of minorities. I believe that no Minister minds coming to the House even to listen to a back bencher talking on a topic if he feels that the matter is of interest to people in this country.

I wish to raise the matter of the provision of accommodation for non-smokers in restaurant cars in this country. I wish to ask whether there is any reason why this country or this House, which is so generous in its treatment of all minorities, should ignore the minority of nonsmokers who certainly do exist in this country. I ought to be honest and declare that I have a vested interest because I am a non-smoker, and I believe that we notice things when they affect ourselves. In the short time I have been in this House hon. Members have accorded, I will not say generous, but at least some, consideration to the people of the minority to which I belong. In the Strangers' Dining Room there are notices requesting people not to smoke until one-thirty p.m. In the Members' Tea Room there is a small section reserved for nonsmokers. I have even found, in the Library of this House, a small section where smoking is not allowed, and where, I would hasten to add, I have never yet seen anyone smoking.

We are not allowed to smoke in this Chamber. I am too new to this House to know the derivation of that rule but it might be, presumably, that you, Mr. Speaker, could not see what was happening or that it would be difficult to speak in a smoky atmosphere. There is another possible reason. I have been informed that in cinemas the amount of light which is lost in the smoke of the audience, if I may use that term, is 25 per cent. of the total amount, and that films therefore lose 25 per cent. of the illumination necessary for viewing. It might well be that in this House hon. Members would fail to catch your eye, Sir, if we lost 25 per cent. of the light which was necessary.

It would not be proper for a very new back bencher to be too optimistic, but I hope that the Minister will tonight be able to make some concession, as I am being very reasonable. I am not asking for legislation, which on the Adjournment would be out of Order. I am not asking him to introduce new rolling stock on the railways. I am not asking him to increase expenditure, nor will what I propose impose upon him additional labour. It seems to me that in the light of that nice train of reasons the Minister could not but relent towards our cause.

How large is this minority in this country? I have tried very hard to find out, but I have not got very far in that matter. I can only inform my right hon. Friend, as I expect he knows, that on 31st July, 1947, the then Chairman of the Railway Executive said that the railways considered that 80 to 85 per cent. of passengers were smokers. Therefore, only 15 per cent. of the accommodation was given to non-smokers. If we accept those figures the question I wish to pose to the right hon. Gentleman is: what is 15 per cent. of the total number of passengers carried by the railways? I pursued the matter to the Transport Commission, who have been most helpful, and we tried to find the number of passengers carried in 1949. That did not get us very far; the number was just short of a billion. I learned that does not necessarily mean that that number of tickets was bought. If a passenger broke his journey two or three times, he would rank as two or three passengers. So I do not feel that that is a good enough case to present to my right hon. Friend.

We therefore return to the matter of restaurant cars. I am informed that in 1948 10 million meals were served in restaurant cars on the railways; the number has, of course, increased in 1949 as more restaurant cars were added. But I am prepared to make an under-statement. Let us deal with the 10 million meals in 1948 and find 15 per cent. of 10 million. I hope I am right, but I make it 1½ million. Therefore, 15 per cent. of these 10 million meals is 1½ million meals. Therefore, 1½ million meals, on the very conservative estimate put by the Railway Executive, must have been eaten by non-smokers—and I appreciate, in case the Minister corrects me, that somebody may have eaten more than one meal.

When it began to leak out that I had been lucky and drawn this Adjournment, one or two people rang me up to ask whether I was demanding more accommodation for non-smokers in these restaurant cars. I said I was not, but that I was merely asking for some accommodation. But I have been informed since then by one or two hon. Members that that was being a little unjust to the right hon. Gentleman, and that on one or two trains this does exist; on the Pullman cars between Leeds and London in the third-class part I did find a small section for non-smokers; and one hon. Member told me today that on a train in which he travelled, the right hon. Gentleman had labelled part of it non-smoking—but had thoughtfully provided ash trays as well to go on the tables. I use the train from Euston to Birmingham which goes through Coventry and which generally leaves Euston at 4.30. If we take 17th March and 24th March of this year, both Fridays, there were on that train—because I counted them—four dining cars; two first-class and two third-class. In each of those four dining cars there were doors which could have been drawn across to separate the cars; but in none of those four dining cars was there any non-smoking accommodation.

I went on the Euston to Birmingham train on 5th March, which was a Sunday. The train left Euston at 11.15. I went into the dining car, and thought I should be lucky and that the heart of my right hon. Friend would have melted in this particular case. There was one small section where there were four tables, and with doors across. But that small section also was for smokers, and I had to sit and be smoked over all the time. I therefore hope very much that my right hon. Friend will bear these facts in mind because, being selfish, I am not primarily concerned with those who have got nonsmoking facilities elsewhere. I am mainly concerned with those trains which I have to use and which have not those facilities.

Perhaps I ought to mention also that in the past when one travelled on the Metropolitan Railway in the London area and the old Southern Region Railway, if one wanted to sit in a non-smoker one could not read because one had to sit over the wheels and be so rocked that it was impossible to do anything at all. All non-smoking carriages are stuck over the wheels. I am told that last year the Transport Commission did relent in one case and put a non-smoking car on a Pullman train on the Southern Region. I do not know whether it was heaping coals of fire on the heads of the people who had objected, but they put the nonsmoking car next to the engine where it got all the smoke.

When one is lucky enough to draw an Adjournment, one does receive a number of letters. I have received a good many, and I do not think that they have all come from cranks. Some have come from doctors who say that it really is injurious for people to have to travel in smoke all the time. I have also heard from people who hoped that it would be in order to ask that in non-smoking compartments the Minister would ask that his staff should please see that is no smoking. So in the matter of health and fair play in the treatment of minorities, and in the selfish interests of myself, who have to use these trains, I ask that a small amount of non-smoking accommodation be provided in the restaurant cars in this country.

There is very little left to say after the admirable speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). This may seem rather a small point, but I do not think that it is quite so small as it would appear. The hon. Lady made a very good case for the people who object to smoking in restaurant cars on trains. In my view it does not matter so much whether the majority of people who travel in trains and eat in restaurant cars object to smoking at meals or not. The fact does remain that it inconveniences some, and I may even say nauseates those who have to eat their meals on a train. I can speak without being biased or accused of being a crank, because I am a very heavy smoker indeed. I do not mind smoking myself at a meal. For some reason the smell of my own smoke does not nauseate me, but the smell of other people's smoke which is blown over me does. Therefore, I think one must not be selfish, but see that people can eat a meal under the conditions they would normally like to have.

On certain main line trains in this country I believe there is a rule, as there is in this House, that up to a certain time one cannot smoke, or one is asked to refrain from smoking; but that rule is broken far too often. Smoking does take place in between courses and at the end of a meal. Surely the remedy is quite simple. People who want to smoke after a mea—and I, personally, very much like to smoke immediately after it—can go back to the ordinary carriages and smoke. I see no reason why people should smoke in a restaurant car. There is no reason why they should not go out. It would be difficult to divide a restaurant car into smoking and non-smoking compartments. I do not think it is necessary to smoke in any part of a restaurant car, and it is quite easy for people to go back to their original carriage and smoke there; and allow other people to come into the restaurant car for a meal.

Even if one smokes during the first lunch on a restaurant car, and there are sliding doors across, those doors would be left open; and smoke fumes would get into the other part of the car and prove disagreeable to those people who do not like smoking. The hon. Lady made a strong case, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will meet it. I seem to recall a year or two ago seeing a photograph of him sitting in a non-smoking carriage on the underground in London with a cigarette in his mouth—

A pipe.

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman; it was a pipe. I hope he will not let that influence his decision. I hope he will give consideration to this problem. It may appear a minor one, but it is nevertheless important to many people, and I hope that he will treat it seriously.

I see some form of unholy alliance between the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) and the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). The hon. Gentleman has been a strong opponent of blood sports, but in this case he is helping the hon. Lady to harry her prey, which for the purposes of the Debate tonight is the smoker, and it is for freedom for the smoker that I appeal tonight against the encroachments of the hon. Lady. The proposition she has made, if it were practical, I am sure would meet with the approval of every hon. Member, but in fact it is hopelessly unpractical, as I am sure the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet knows full well.

I believe that the Railway Executive are doing a magnificent job. The improvement in the fare and in the facilities in restaurant cars is a clear indication of a new efficiency which has been brought to bear since nationalisation. But there remains the same tremendously difficult task still to be performed every day. At all times it is most difficult to serve meals in trains, because of the movement in the carriages and the difficulty of negotiating corridors, and so on. I think that the hon. Lady would agree that it is not as easy to serve a meal in a train as it is to serve a meal in a restaurant, and in this connection I should like to ask her whether she would be prepared to go to any restaurant in London, Coventry, Birmingham or elsewhere, and suggest to the management that they should reserve a portion of their restaurant for nonsmokers or that they should draw across some form of screen or partition to segregate those people who enjoy tobacco from those who do not.

The hon. Gentleman appreciates that a railway restaurant car is far more confined than a restaurant, however small?

The space in a restaurant car is more limited, I agree, but a restaurant car is not used only for the serving of meals. For part of the journey, it is used for ordinary railway seating purposes. In the circumstances, it is hopelessly unpractical to suggest that some form of segregation should be instituted. But we must bear in mind the physical rolling stock deficiencies and the tendency, which we understand is now in the minds of those responsible for the provision of restaurant facilities, towards the open coach similar to that used in America where segregation is impossible.

One should be able to rely upon the good will and the good sense of people who travel by rail in the same way as one has to rely on them in restaurant rooms in the House of Commons. People who read their menus will see that travellers are requested not to smoke before or during a meal. This should be impressed upon travellers more effectively. I think that the Minister would do well to advise the Hotels' Executive that it is the general opinion in this House that where certain restrictions on smoking can be imposed at certain times they should be imposed more rigorously. Nobody would object to this proposal, but I suggest that to argue that there should be segregation at present in railway compartments, taking into account the rolling stock position, is unpractical, although I admire the courage of my hon. Friend in raising this matter on behalf of non-smoking women and men.

I did not intend to take part in this Debate, but I was moved by what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) and I feel compelled to try to answer what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis). His case rested on the fact that it was physically unpractical to introduce the segregation for which the hon. Lady asked; but that is not so. I travel a great deal on the railway to which the hon. Lady referred. Before the war the restaurant cars on that line were divided into smokers and non-smokers. The same stock is used today and it is perfectly practicable to confine non-smokers to the smaller part of the coach. The non-smoker contained about four tables and the smoker contained 12 or 15. There is no reason why non-smokers should not be allowed the use of that part of the coach which they used before the war.

Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that before the war both the non-smoking and the smoking compartments were rarely full, because there was a large amount of unemployment and bad conditions generally and many travellers were unable to take advantage of the restaurant car facilities? Today the situation is different and there is a greater demand than ever before for facilities of this kind.

I do not want to introduce politics into this Debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is stretching the point a little. Before the war there were smoking and non-smoking compartments in the restaurant cars. The same cars run 'today. During the war there was a relaxation of the rules and people were allowed to smoke in all compartments. Since the war the restriction has been reimposed, and those people who do not like to smoke are now able to find one smoke-free compartment in each carriage. Although I was a heavy smoker at one time, the machinations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have caused a change in my habits. I much appreciate being able to find a compartment in which people have not been smoking. In the same way, it would be possible to restrict smokers to the larger part of the restaurant car and to leave the smaller part for those people who do not like to have smoke puffed over them at meals or, even worse, to find the dying stub of a cigarette when they come in for second service. This is thoroughly revolting, to some of us, and I think that the hon. Lady has done a real service by raising the matter tonight.

Many of us have listened with a feeling of dismay particularly to words like "offensive" and "revolting," and some must have wondered how we could have grown up to be so callous and indifferent to the sensibilities of the minority of our population. It is desirable to look at this problem not from the point of view of our own feelings or emotions, but from the medical angle. We should try to find some excuse for our revolting and disgusting habits. First, we must ask why we smoke and, particularly, why we want to smoke after a meal. Indeed, some people enjoy a cigarette between courses, especially when travelling on trains or sitting in restaurants when eating is a function other than merely consuming a certain amount of calories, proteins, fats and carbo-hydrates. There are very real reasons for this and I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) will bear with me when I try to explain why it is that we fall into this habit.

It is well known that in our modern age of hurry and bustle we tend to eat rather quickly. We are becoming more dyspeptic. I think that roughly 15 per cent. of our folk are the subjects of peptic ulceration or minor forms of dyspepsia. It may be that these are the 15 per cent. who do not smoke. It is impossible to prove a point like that without further research. I hope that the Railway Executive will liaison with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Food to consider some combined research so that we shall discover the true position.

There is one point that cannot be denied. It is a well-known fact that, when one takes a meal, whether it is a test meal or a normal meal—I know from my own case, and because I did much research work on this subject as a student—to smoke one cigarette or pipe immediately afterwards affects the process of digestion. The time that it takes the stomach itself to empty is doubled in most cases, and, even in a normal case, is very considerably prolonged. It is that feeling of great ease and comfort which comes to people through smoking, and particularly if the food is unpalatable or unseasoned. I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) agrees with me. The other feature is that the amount of free hydrochloric acid in those who have a tendency to disorder—those who are dyspeptic and have a feeling of tension—is doubled in those who smoke after a meal.

It is a delusion that we smoke in order to annoy our fellow men—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or our fellow-travellers."] We smoke, not, as has been suggested, to annoy our fellow travellers, but primarily for the selfish reason that we enjoy it; and because we know it is doing us more good than harm. Lastly, and I want to say this in case the hon. Lady takes any umbrage at what I have been saying; let her consider that the non-smoker is more virtuous than the smoker and gains an unfair advantage over him. One cannot inhale these volatile fumes from tobacco without a certain amount of carbon monoxide, which I estimate—and it is strange that the percentage is again the same—at 15 per cent. That means that one cannot make an impromptu speech without the most careful preparation, and that it is certainly utterly impossible for us to reach the Front Bench. These facts give the hon. Lady an enormous advantage, and one hopes that she will forgive those of us who assault her sense of smell—which is most important—although those who do not smoke certainly smell trouble almost everywhere they go.

I support the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). She, at any rate, has got a case, and I do not think the other speakers had any case at all, except one for disorder and irrelevance.

I think there should be a certain functionalism in life, and this Debate brings back to my memory an incident during the war, when a gallant Colonial soldier, an honorary member of a certain club of which I am a member, sat down at my table. He said, "Do you mind if I smoke?" and produced a large pipe, which he had already filled and prepared immediately to light. I said, "I do not very much mind whether you smoke or not. There is a certain functionalism in British society. We have a room where we eat in this club; we have a room where we write, and that is called the library." I went on through all the other rooms, and I said, "We also have a room where we smoke. This is the breakfast room. I eat breakfast here, but I do not do the other things here."

So I brought home to this gallant, though somewhat ill-informed and inexperienced soldier, the British way of life, and, when so many revolutionary ideas come from hon. Gentlemen who support the Government, this idea, which has come from the hon. Lady, shows that she is standing for a certain decency and order. If decency and order and a certain functionalism are not to be maintained in our society, then it is in a more rapid state of decay and decline than I imagined.

If hon. Members opposite will allow their imagination to run a little further than I can direct it, they will easily see what sort of a situation we might eventually reach, if this idea of freedom, liberty and licence is to be carried out indefinitely. I feel very strongly about this. I am a smoker. Like Charles Kingsley, I believe that tobacco is the poor man's wealth and the hungry man's food. Many hon. Members will know the quotation from "Westward Ho!" in which tobacco is hailed. I am also an admirer of C. S. Calverley, who wrote admirable lyrics on tobacco, and, though not normally a defender of King James the Sixth of Scotland and First of England, I would mention that he wrote "A Counterblast against Tobacco" I am quite open-minded on this matter, but I think the hon. Lady is right to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the importance of doing one thing at a time in one place.

This House is the only place in the United Kingdom where people are not allowed to smoke. I think it is a distinction which we should like to see extended to other places. I think the theatre is very often made impossible for people by the use of tobacco, and it is an even more remarkable thing that we tolerate smoking in cinemas in this country. In the United States, which has a much greater cinema-going public, it is not allowed. So this little pebble which the hon. Lady has cast into our discussions is not without its importance and value. She has raised her standard against the looseness and carelessness of the attitude to life represented by many hon. Gentlemen opposite and has made a plea for decency and order, to which I hope the Minister will give an encouraging reply.

I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), should have tried to persuade us to encourage the smoker to the extent that he did with medical terms which, frankly, I found it extremely difficult to understand. I want to reply a little to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis). I am a little surprised, considering the large number of people who smoke on the railways, that he should appeal for freedom for the smoker. My experience, especially in travelling on trains between London and Birmingham, is that the smoker has complete freedom, and that there is just one cloud of smoke all the way through the trains. I do not know, but I should have thought it would have been a good thing to encourage less smoking rather than more smoking—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been trying to do for some time.

I wish that the Minister would consider some course of segregation by compartments, because, as it is, non-smokers frequently have to sit at tables at which other people smoke heavily. There is not in railway restaurant cars the alternative available in many restaurants of going to another table. Frankly, I do hope my right hon. Friend will not take note of the hilarity that has been introduced into this Debate, but will take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), has said, and of the arguments she has used. She has done a real service in raising this matter on the Adjournment, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will do something about it.

I hesitate to rise for the first time in this House on an occasion of this kind, but at the same time I do wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). I share the view that we do at times seem to be becoming less disciplined than we were, and I think the whole basis of discipline in a democratic society is to ensure that no disservice or hurt is done to our fellows. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a very pertinent question, and one which has not arisen in this discussion. I believe that it is an offence against the by-laws of the former railway companies for a person to smoke in a non-smoking compartment. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend how many prosecutions there have been of smokers for smoking in non-smoking compartments. I anticipate that the evidence or statistics that he will supply will, in my view, and in the view of the House, be ample justification for the insistence by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South, on a greater enforcement of those by-laws.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has rendered a great service tonight in raising this question, and in considering it we have had the pleasure of listening to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever). We are interested to note that in his maiden speech he raises a legal point, thus bringing his profession immediately before the House. We shall, of course, be pleased to hear the reply of my right hon. Friend when he gives the legal points due consideration and supplies the statistics that have been asked for. It has been interesting to hear the arguments adduced by a medical and scientific authority in defence of smoking. I was an exceedingly heavy smoker at one time, but it was the evidence provided by the medical profession that caused me to cease smoking—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer helped.

—and I am pleased to say that I have never regretted it, except, of course, when I have been endeavouring to have a meal in a restaurant car. I well remember not many years ago making a journey from St. Pancras to Derby and taking a meal on the train when, unfortunately, these was a gentleman who sat opposite and who was smoking a pipe. Soon after I got out at Derby I had to dispose of my meal. The most irksome thing about it was that I had invited him to appreciate the fact that we were in a restaurant car and that he would oblige me if he desisted from smoking. He said, "I have a right to smoke here if I feel so disposed." He entered into a keen argument with me about it, and when we got out at Derby he invited me not only to enjoy his smoking but to engage in a fight.

I mention this in the hope that the House will appreciate that, unfortunately, we become accustomed to habits, and that those habits cause us to be quite indifferent to the convenience and customs of other people. I suggest that, whether we smoke or whether we do not, regard should be paid to the habits of different sections of the community, and provision should be made for smokers and nonsmokers. I see no physical difficulty in that. If when travelling in an ordinary carriage, perhaps with an invalid suffering from asthma, one asks people to desist from smoking, they say that they will please themselves. We are asking for nothing that is not reasonable, and I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that in future these regulations will be enforced, and that provision will be made in the restaurant cars so that smokers may enjoy their smoking and non-smokers may be able to eat their meals without annoyance from the smokers.

I have been very intrigued at the suggestions put forward. I have been smoking since I was seven. In those days I could not afford cigarettes, and used to pull up the wild parsnips when they were well dried in the summer and fill them with dried leaves from under the hedge, and they smoked very well. It was a very potent smoke, but it was a very good school in which to graduate, because it enabled one to smoke all the very doubtful stuff that has been on the market in the past few years. We must be tolerant of these unfortunate people who are not like the rest of us, and due provision ought to be made for them.

I was intrigued to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) who, not content with supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), has now moved into such close proximity to her. There is always something unusual about a man who has not taken unto himself a wife or a woman who has not taken unto herself a husband. I do not mind these people of unusual tastes; they must be allowed to indulge in their tastes. A strange thing about it is that my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, who generally travels to Birmingham with me, always insists on travelling in a smoking compartment. The poor smokers very often find no seat in the smoking compartments because they are filled with non-smokers, so that some of us have been compelled to get into nonsmoking compartments and surreptitiously have a few draws when the ticket collector is not about.

I think that the Minister ought to cater for all these unusual people; he ought to provide a special coach at the front of the train and label it "Here ride the people who do not smoke, do not drink, do not swear, do not get married, and do not do any of the things that normal people do." Let us have a carriage for all the abnormal characters; let us have them segregated, and then as the train stops on the journey and they get out we can look at them and try to guess which is it of the things normal people enjoy that they do not do.

I think that the public generally are always very tolerant when there is a non-smoker in a compartment and are prepared to desist from smoking or go out into the corridor. After all, we are catering for a very small percentage of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Fifteen per cent. I am told. I should not imagine that the figure is as high, although if I take the average in my own family perhaps it is a little higher.

I want the Minister to meet the case of these unusual people, but I think that they ought to be segregated. Why not keep them altogether in one place by reserving one compartment with dining facilities at one end of the train? If he does that, I shall feel happier, because I shall know that wherever I sit in the train I shall not be amongst unusual people. I shall be free to smoke and to do all the things that the unusual people do not do.

In any case, I have never claimed any of the special virtues. I did manage not to smoke for eight weeks after I came out of hospital, on one occasion. I lost the desire to smoke. After eight weeks of non-smoking, although I knew that it was in the interest of my health that I should not smoke, my temper was so appalling that I had to force myself to smoke in order to continue living with my wife—or perhaps I should put it the other way and say in order that my wife might continue to live with me. The domestic bliss is now complete in my home, simply because I indulge periodically and fairly heavily in this pernicious weed which has been blamed in this Debate.

I must say that the despatch of Parliamentary Business was such that I was taken by surprise at the early commencement of this Debate. I share with the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) the desire to smoke anything that burns. I must say, however, that the craving is one which I have only in moderation because when I am confined to cigarettes I never smoke more than eight or nine a day; but that does not blind me to the dire necessity of many non-smokers to keep away from such as the hon. Gentleman and myself when we wish to smoke, especially at meal times.

I think that there is a simple and ready solution to this matter. The situation which arises sometimes in railway restaurant cars remind us of the occasion which, I believe, is now a classic, when a noble Lord from another place was lunching in a railway restaurant car with a lady who, I believe, was a Member of this House. After the first two courses, he brought out his cigar and started to smoke. The lady said, "Do you mind if I eat while you smoke?" The reply was, "All right, if you do it quietly." That is a situation which must, if possible, in the interests of civilised life in Britain, be abolished. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, whom we are delighted to see on this occasion in his place, that the ready solution is at hand. Most railway restaurant cars are already divided into first-class and third-class. What has happened to the second-class has, of course, passed into the mists of history.

They have joined the Liberal Party.

It is unfortunate that there is no Member of the Independent Liberal Party present on this interesting occasion to give us the benefit of the Liberal philosophy. Owing to the fact that restaurant cars are already divided in that way, and owing to the fact that we on this side are aiming at a classless society, whatever may be the views of Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] Yes, Sir, we are aiming at a classless society, and the Education Act, 1944, which was piloted through by a Conservative Minister, was a notable step in that direction.

Bearing in mind that we are aiming at a classless society, and that it will therefore be a step in the right direction for us to abolish this distinction between first and third classes, in restaurant cars at any rate, where no extra comfort can be bought for a first-class ticket, I suggest to the Minister that he makes a far better use of the division which already exists in these cars by making one section for non-smokers and the other for smokers. It would be a prudent step to give the larger section to the smokers because, for better or worse, they are probably in the majority among those who take meals in restaurant cars.

Whatever the personal tastes of Members may be in the matter of tobacco and whatever abhorrence they may feel, they must make up their minds to ensure that justice is done for their fellow-beings. We have to remember that there are those people who suffer from asthma, bronchitis and other forms of ill-health who may be badly upset by tobacco smoke, and especially at meal times. We must somehow try to reach a satisfactory conclusion to the question that has been posed by the hon. Lady, to whom I am sure we are all very grateful. We do not want the Minister to get up and say, in answer to this simple proposition, "Mine's a Burton."

I should not have ventured to intervene in this Debate but for the fact that I am probably the only Member present who has been employed by a railway company to prosecute smokers for smoking in non-smoking compartments. I have listened with great interest to the learned points that have been put in this Debate, but I must say that they do not seem to have added anything new. This is a very old problem indeed. There was a time when smoking was a peculiarity that was only indulged in secretly. One used to have a smoking jacket and even a special cap to keep the smoke out of the hair. But that was many years ago.

There was a time when certain compartments were labelled smoking compartments, but that, too, has passed, because most ladies and gentlemen smoke these days and the unusual people are those who do not. From my own observations non-smoking compartments are provided on all trains. There seems to be ample room for non-smokers. I think that the railways have provided adequately for non-smokers, but so far as restaurant cars are concerned, it depends on what railway, or in these days in which region, one is travelling. In certain Regions, certainly in the Western Region, it has been the rule for a considerable period that the first and second lunches in the dining car were to be non-smoking The attendants were instructed to prevent smoking at these meals, and it was not until after the second lunch or the final lunch, if there were more than two, that the diners were entitled to smoke. Notice to that effect is placed on the table. If that notice is observed, I cannot see what objection there can be to those people who have consumed their meal smoking afterwards, because non-smokers can return, if they like, to their non-smoking compartments.

During the 20-odd years that I was with the solicitor's department of a railway company, we did not have an undue number of complaints about cases in which people smoked in non-smoking compartments. There were a few every year, which led to a few prosecutions. I have no up-to-date information, so that I do not know if this class of offence has increased. I should not be very surprised if it had not. In my experience, the figures remained fairly constant—a few cases and a few prosecutions. Only occasionally was someone unreasonable. I end where I began—it seems to me that ample provision has already been made by the various regions of the railways to provide facilities for non-smokers.

I believe that the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has done a service in bringing this matter to the notice of the House. I speak as a smoker. I started some three years ago. I had not the sense to start when cigarettes were 20 for 11½d. I am concerned about this matter, and I feel very much like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) that this is an appalling habit which has invaded every sanctum of life. The hon. Member remarked that this Chamber was the only place where we did not smoke. We do not smoke in the council chamber at Bolton. In my time it was not permissible to smoke in the committee rooms, but everyone of those bodies has fallen from grace. Even the watch committee now smoke during their deliberations. I do not know how long the Bolton Town Council in its council chamber will be able to withstand this thing.

In certain political circles a man can contract out, and surely it is not too much to ask that 15 per cent. of the diners on a train should be entitled to contract out of a polluted atmosphere. That is a perfectly reasonable request, and I would go further and say that if something is not done on the lines suggested by the hon. Lady, it will not only be hurtful to nonsmokers but damaging to smokers. There are very active campaigns going on for purer food, and more cleanliness in its preparation. If there is one thing that is bad it is smoke secondhand. It can be the best brand it is possible to buy, but it is ruined if it is received in that way.

I was stricken down with a bad stomach a few years ago, and the doctor said to me that the worst thing that I could do was to smoke immediately before a meal. It is not so bad after a meal. The hon. Member for Coventry, South, does not like smoking after a meal. Is it not a fact that everywhere one goes in a dining car or restaurant, people walk to the dining table with a cigarette dangling from their lips or between their fingers? If 15 per cent. of the diners are asking for the fundamental right to eat away from the pollution of tobacco smoke, the Minister of Transport ought to give it very serious consideration. It is not permitted to smoke inside public service vehicles, and I was surprised in Brighton not long ago when I noticed that they were smoking inside the lower deck of the public service vehicles.

Is that the reason why the public of Lancashire come to Brighton for their holidays?

Yes, some of them do go to Brighton. I asked a question at Brighton about this matter, and I was told that the town council had come to the conclusion that as everybody smoked it was no use giving any special domain to the non-smokers. On the important matter touching the cleanliness of food, I would point out that the non-smokers are a very considerable element in the population of this island and that they are entitled to the elementary right of having provision made for them at least to eat within their own circle and without the pollution of tobacco smoke.

The nonchalant speech that was delivered by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), who for a time represented, he told us, the railway companies, made it clear to me why there are so many people in non-smoking compartments who have not the least intention of carrying out the wording of the label on the window. Indeed, I should imagine that if the hon. Gentleman carried out his legal duties as he suggested we might look at this problem tonight, that is one of the main reasons why so few people take not the least notice of the sign "No Smoking." Even my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. C. Poole) is one of the people with whom the hon. Gentleman ought to have dealt before this. My hon. Friend is prepared on occasion surreptitiously to smoke in a non-smoking compartment. I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman behaving in that way, having the sort of views that he has advocated here tonight.

My hon. Friend confessed, and I will admit that I have a common ground with him here, that he started this evil habit of smoking at the age of seven. I think it was about then that I started too, but it had such effects upon me that I have been wise enough to avoid it ever since. At any rate, I am quite clear in my mind that the very good rule which was referred to by the hon. Member for Truro and which formerly existed, that smoking carriages were designated as such, led people to regard their duty in a more serious way than they do now, when the rule has been entirely changed. I observed during the war that there was a general breakdown in the habits of the people who travelled in non-smoking carriages. Perhaps it was the general sympathy that we had for the Service man that led us to feel that he ought to have the right to the narcotic weed or such other enjoyment as he could obtain.

What we are complaining about today is the unwillingness of people to accord to the non-smoker even one table, or at the most a small compartment of four tables, in a resturant car, and their unwillingness to treat fairly the people who do not find their amusement by means of smoke. Like other hon. Members, I warmly commend the action of the hon. Lady in proposing that the Minister should make a new survey of the problem. I am not sure whether the best solution was not that suggested from the National Liberal benches. I have often wondered what the National Liberal benches existed for. I wondered particularly when the National Liberal Member looked at the empty bench in front of him and deplored the fact that Liberal principles could no longer be advocated here. I see that two Liberal Members are now here. I am sure that they would know what to say upon this matter, but I want to tell them that in their absence there has been a moral recovery on the part of the National Liberal bench and that an hon. Member has discovered a good expedient which I believe ought to be examined carefully by the Minister.

That is that the accommodation in the first-class and third-class restaurant cars should be combined and the space thus available divided between smokers and non-smokers. That proposition needs to be looked at in these democratic days for other reasons. I do not see why in these days anybody should be able to secure first-class accommodation in a dining car, even if they have more to spend. If all the accommodation is thrown together and divided as I have suggested, the Minister will find an easy way out of his difficulties and thus meet the desire of the hon. Lady to have effective non-smoking accommodation provided.

I should not have risen but for the provocative remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). The theory that nobody should buy a first-class ticket is not really very popular, nor is the proposal that all should have the same rate of remuneration. If he will talk to his trade union friends he will find that they are very keen on the differentials. It is no good having differentials in incomes unless there are differentials in spending possibilities. Hon. Members opposite do not believe in a classless society—not when they become Members of Parliament evidently.

In all seriousness, my observation is that the non-smokers are treated preferentially at present. Walking along any railway train, one nearly always finds vacant space in the compartments labelled "No Smoking." As a rule there is also vacant space in the rarer compartments labelled "Ladies Only." I remember a discussion once between two ladies of my acquaintance. They were talking about a third lady and what sort of a woman she was. One lady said "She is the kind of woman who on a long journey always goes into the compartment labelled 'Ladies Only'." What that meant I could not quite discover. I hope that on what used to be called the L.M.S. Railway, and what is now the Midland Region, there will be provided a special car on certain trains bearing the name "The Lady Godiva Car."

I feel stimulated by the two speeches to which I have had the privilege of listening to add my own plea on this subject. I suggest that yet another form of differential might be mentioned. I gather than one form of distinction has already been suggested between first-class and third-class passengers. There is a distinction between pipe smokers and cigarette smokers. There are very few people who, even if they are non-smokers, can or ought very seriously to object to cigarette smoking, but there are kinds of pipe-smoking which are extremely difficult to stomach. With all due respect to the comments of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), the fact that there are sometimes vacant seats in ordinary nonsmoking compartments does not really touch the issue we are considering tonight. The number of non-smokers is perhaps larger than is sometimes realised, but we nevertheless constitute a minority, and it is for that reason that we hope the Minister will perform the traditional task of seeing that the rights of minorities are protected.

I also hope that as a result of this interesting and useful Debate the Minister will do something about this matter, which I do not think is a trivial one. Nonsmokers have a real grievance and have been subject to many hardships and difficulties and annoyance at having to take their meals in compartments with other people smoking.

I suggest three remedies to the Minister. First, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to provide more accommodation in restaurant cars. Secondly, it is important to see that the rules with regard to non-smoking in compartments set aside for non-smokers are much more rigidly observed in future. Thirdly, I suggest to the hon. Lady and to other non-smokers that to some extent they have the remedy in their own hands if they will only assert themselves a little more when they are in non-smoking compartments and other people start to smoke.

A classic piece of repartee was made by a lady of my acquaintance travelling in a non-smoking section of a restaurant car. When a complete stranger sat opposite to her and, before anything had been served, said to her, "You do not mind if I smoke, do you?" She replied at once, "No, I do not mind if you smoke, as long as you do not mind if I am sick."

I confess immediately that I am on the side of those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) on raising this matter this evening. It is a timely matter. It has not only brought us up against a substantial change in the habits of the people, but has disclosed to me the diverse habits and views of my colleagues in the House of Commons. What I am most grateful for is that this is the most pleasant Debate on British Railways I have experienced, and I would welcome more experiences of that character.

The railway companies have always endeavoured to meet the problem of the non-smoker. What we are up against here is that during the war the restaurant car service was completely withdrawn and there was a great change in the attitude of women towards smoking. When the restaurant cars came back, the Railway Executive were faced with this problem. On the old London and North Eastern and London, Midland and Scottish Railways a proportion of their restaurant cars were of a divided character. I cannot say what was the actual proportion, but probably the majority of coaches were of the open vestibule type. On what was the Southern Railway, the Pullman-type of restaurant service is so divided that people can more or less choose the compartment to satisfy their habits. I believe that on the Great Western Railway the open vestibule car was practically universal and that there was very little division in the restaurant cars.

What has happened, as far as I can gather, is that, because of the great change in the habits of the people, smoking has tended to become universal. It is quite true that notices are exhibited requesting passengers not to smoke before or during the service of meals. We are also aware that on long journeys there are very often two or three services of meals on a particular journey and that whilst the rule may be observed during the first service, it becomes more or less inoperative afterwards.

I am informed that of the 7,000 recent complaints, the Railway Executive and the Hotels Executive—they have a joint responsibility in this matter—have received there is only one complaint about the lack of provision of non-smoking accommodation. I do not, however, place any importance on that. I accept completely the principle that the Railway Executive and the Hotels Executive must in the long run, provide the requisite accommodation to meet the habits of the people who are travelling.

As a matter of accuracy, is not this the responsibility of the Hotels Executive and not of the Railway Executive?

It is bound to be a joint responsibility. The Railway Executive are responsible for the construction of the rolling stock, and, especially under present conditions, with capital investment cuts affecting the building of fresh rolling stock, they must have a large say in the type and design of rolling stock which is to be constructed. There has, in fact, been practically no new construction. The problem, therefore, is largely one of rolling stock and restaurant cars which existed before the war. A good deal of it has been re-conditioned and the tendency, as with most railway rolling stock, has been to move towards the open vestibule type of coaches.

This discussion has been indeed timely, because both Executives ought to be aware of the opinion of hon. Members on a problem of this character, and this discussion, which has taken place before any new building programme comes into operation, will have to be given serious consideration. I should like to make it plain to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South, that, while she has appealed particularly to the Minister to do this, that and the other, it is not for the Minister to decide the proportions of the various types of accommodation in the building of new rolling stock; but it certainly is my responsibility—and I can promise the House that it will be discharged—to convey accurately to those concerned, and with all the power at my disposal, the views which hon. Members have expressed tonight.

Despite the humour and lightheartedness which have been introduced into the Debate, which we all welcome as a relief from our more serious discussions, I do not think anyone will dispute that there is tonight a general feeling on both sides of the House that the Railway Executive and the Hotels Executive should take seriously into consideration this demand, not of the general public, but of an important minority of the travelling public.

It is quite true that in public restaurants today there is a general habit of smoking during meals. We must bear in mind that it is not necessary to smoke in the restaurant car itself. The bulk of the accommodation on trains today is at the disposal of the smoking section of the population, and it is not an unreasonable request to ask people to suspend smoking for five or 10 minutes. If they are in a hurry, they can get their bill quickly and repair to sections of the train which are normally provided for smokers. I do not consider that this would inflict any hardship even on the majority who want to smoke, because a journey usually takes a longer time than does a meal, and it is only for a short period that they would be asked to refrain from smoking in a restaurant car.

I think the Minister was under a delusion in regard to one matter. I was not talking about new rolling stock but of the stock which exists at present and on which I travel. There is room in the small compartments which are part of the dining cars to put up non-smoking labels. I have only asked for such accommodation as is possible. I am much concerned with the tea meal, and I have never seen labels asking people not to smoke during tea.

I was well aware of that, and that appeared to be most reasonable. My hon. Friend will recognise that it is not possible at present to enter a new programme of building, but nevertheless it follows that if a case is made out for the provision of non-smoking accommodation in the present restaurant cars, once the principle is admitted it ought to be taken into consideration when new rolling stock is introduced.

I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) on one of the briefest maiden speeches made in this House. I sincerely trust that when he makes other speeches, which we shall be delighted to hear, he will not put such posers as he submitted to me on this occasion and force me to admit that I am unable to answer the questions he has asked. I regret that I am not able to give him the number of prosecutions which the Railway Executive or the Hotels Executive have undertaken for the non-observance of this rule.

By-laws are in existence and accommodation has been provided in the past; nevertheless, the general habits of the community have changed as a result of the war and nearly everyone has begun to accept the view that the convenience of the great majority of travellers should be consulted, and the matter has been allowed to go by default. That is why a discussion of this kind is timely and useful. If we ventilate problems of this character, I shall hear less of the complaint that hon. Members cannot discuss the affairs of British Railways.

Would the right hon. Gentleman express a view about the suggestion I made of using existing divisions between first and third classes in restaurant cars, a view which commended itself to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson)?

I purposely avoided that as I did not want to be drawn into problems which would take us widely afield.