May I ask the acting Leader of the House whether any decision has now been reached regarding the Business for Thursday of next week?

Yes, Sir. On Thursday, 3rd July, we shall take Supply [10th Allotted Day] in Committee. A Debate will take place on the productivity of labour. We shall, of course, table the appropriate Votes, Ministry of Labour and National Service, and others, if necessary.

As this is the principal Clause in the Bill, it is my intention to ask for clarification so that I may be satisfied that the work we are doing this morning is not to have a reaction on the policy which I have been pursuing for the last 30 years. Clause I gives certain powers in regard to certain schemes extending athwart the land frontier. The Clause deals with

"the use or development of water power for the purpose of generating electricity or for any other purpose;"

I believe in the development of electricity by water power, and I think we can benefit to a great extent by the development of a scheme of that kind; but will this power be used along the road which we on this side of the Committee have travelled for the last 50 years—the development of electricity nationally? Or will it be continued on the old road of private enterprise? I want the Home Secretary to answer these points. We have certainly made a little headway in schemes of nationalisation in a particular direction, but when we thought we were getting to the end of the road, we discovered that we were subject to a form of semi-socialisation.

The Clause also deals with the storage or supply of water. We all know that a necessity of mankind is water, and anyone who tried to stop the development of a scheme for the conservation and supply of water would be acting against the interests of the population. In parts of Northern Ireland we are living in a very primitive condition. In County Down there is no water supply to any homes outside a particular area. The only supply is by means of certain systems of water containers. In the City of Belfast we have a very up-to-date water supply which comes from the Mourne Mountains. At times we have tried to get it extended, but we have not been successful. That scheme would bring comfort to areas out- side Belfast, in County Down. The most primitive places, under twentieth century conditions, are those villages and towns which we find without proper water supplies or proper sanitary conditions. That state of affairs operates within a given area, and if this Clause is to help to bring nearer a water supply for the homes of County Down and other areas which are without such a facility, I will give it my wholehearted support. I want to be assured that this power will be used in the direction I have outlined.

The Clause also provides for the drainage or irrigation of land, and I will not oppose that, because I know its necessity and importance. Next there is the supply of electricity. I want to see electricity in every home in Northern Ireland and I want to ensure that any power which this House may grant to the Government of Northern Ireland will be used for the purpose of bringing electric light and power to the outlying parts of the Six Counties. Could I have an assurance on that from the Home Secretary? At the present time there is in Northern Ireland an Electricity Board, and the scheme which we have there is operating very well within limits. However, the Government of Northern Ireland will not put into practice, because of the cost, the plea which I am making for the giving of power and light to the outlying areas, and the people who require light and power in those outlying places have not the money to pay the overhead charges incurred in the expansion of the system. I want to have an assurance from the Government that this scheme will be operated for the benefit and welfare of the community and not in the interests of private enterprise. The Clause also provides for:

"the provision, maintenance, improvement, alteration or abandonment of highways, railways, inland waterways or bridges."

These are things which, 20 years ago, I began to strive to see developed in my day and generation in Northern Ireland. During the war we had very heavy traffic on our roads and over our bridges and railways, and it is well to have the power contained in this Clause. At this point I want to make it known that I speak here, not as was circulated in a "round robin" when I came into the House some years ago as a defender of the I.R.A., for I am an Irish Presbyterian, but as one who believes in the development of labour and Socialism in the life of Ireland. My aim and object during the 30 years I have been in public life has been in that direction. I say this because of the "round robin" which was circulated. Having made this explanation because I considered it was necessary, I will now proceed. We are told that this Clause gives power for schemes to be undertaken outside the Six Counties. That is a pleasing sound to my ears, and it is a sound which will bring joy and contentment in both parts of Ireland. I am glad that this is one medium by which the Home Secretary can bring the two opposing forces in Ireland together, at any rate in one sphere.

I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Clause of the Bill which we are discussing, and to what is precisely contained in that Clause.

I bow to your Ruling Major Milner, because as one who has occupied a similar position to you in another place, I know your difficulties, and I want to meet with your requirements. The Clause says:

"This Section applies to schemes … being schemes extending as well to the portion of Ireland outside the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Northern Ireland as to the portion of Ireland within the jurisdiction of that Parliament but not further."

In other words, we are to go across the border and work unitedly in the interests of the peoples of the two States in Ireland. I welcome that because it is a step in the right direction, and it may lead us to happier and more contented times. Having said this on Clause 1, I am not going to overdo my welcome to it. It is a very long Clause and it contains much that is gratifying. I want to have from the Home Secretary the assurances for which I have asked, because I feel I am entitled to get them as the representative of the view of Labour in this House, not only for the Six Counties, but all over Ireland. We want to be assured that there will be no abuses of this Clause during the period alluded to. I hope the Home Secretary will not think me too harsh in my statement, but that he will be able to deal with the points I have raised on this Clause.

I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a word on this Clause. I believe I am the senior Irishman who is a Member of the House of Commons, and in my constituency, and indeed throughout the country, it is hoped that the schemes contemplated in Clause I of this Bill, as presented to the House by the Home Secretary a fortnight ago, will commend themselves to people on both sides of the Border as being of profound significance in the economic expansion of Irish industry. When I was a young man in Ireland, I served very many years in cooperation with that great Irishman the late Sir Horace Plunket. I sat in a whole series of conferences with him in connection with the development of Irish agriculture and with various schemes, some of which are contemplated in the first Clause of this Bill. The Lough Erne scheme, to which attention was called on the Second Reading, has been hanging fire for many years, and has-been looked forward to on both sides of the Border with anxious hope as being of great importance in its possible consequences to the development of economic power in Irish industrial expansion. This Clause gives the opportunity for that great scheme to be brought into operation. Since I was a young man, travelling in Northern Ireland on various schemes of development, the bridging of the Foyle has been constantly discussed by both sides as part of the economic development of Northern Ireland. This Clause also contemplates that scheme in a practical way.

The only part of the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Beattie) which I can endorse is the concluding sentences when he said that the Clause presents the opportunity of bringing the people on both sides of the Border into closer co-operation and friendly understanding. As an Irishman who is still ex-ceedingly interested in all parts of the country and of its people, I should like to congratulate the Home Secretary on the admirable speech which he made on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was sound common sense and in relation to this particular Clause I say—though possibly I am travelling a little bit over the line—that those parts of his closing speech on the Second Reading in which he referred to these schemes have created a profound impression on people on both sides of the Border, which will be of great consequence to all sections of the community. I welcome this Clause.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) has asked for an explanation of this Clause. In the course of his speech he found it necessary, as it appears always to be necessary when discussing Irish affairs, to tell us his religious affiliations. I could not help being reminded of a line written by the most famous son of the college I attended:

"New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large."

In the hon. Member's speech there was an atmosphere which I was hoping we should not have to combat again on this Bill. This is a Clause which enables us to get over some of the difficulties created by Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which confined the activities of the two Governments to their respective sides of the Border. That has not merely created difficulties for one but for both. There are schemes which it is desirable should be the subject of cooperative effort by both Governments. This Clause is designed to overcome those restrictions for the purpose of enabling schemes that ought to operate on both sides of the Border to be carried out.

The most immediate need with which this Clause deals is the difficulty with regard to the hydro-electric development of the River Erne and Lough Erne. From time to time the Government of Southern Ireland have themselves approached Departments of the Government of Northern Ireland with regard to that matter and the carrying out of the necessary works in Northern Ireland. A grant of facilities for the operation of the scheme generally will involve the utilisation of the available water power of the upper and lower loughs which are situated wholly in Northern Ireland, but have part of their catchment area in Southern Ireland and flow out to the sea through Southern Ireland territory. It will involve the alteration in the statutory levels fixed in respect of the two loughs.

There is a practical problem which must be solved, and, as far as I know, the doctrine that water finds its own level has no theological signifiance at all. It is entirely a matter of a practical proposition which, if we can carry it through, will be mutually advantageous to both countries.

With regard to the railway the same kind of thing operates. The carrying out of this project will involve some interference with roads and bridges, including railway bridges which run across the frontier. In those cases one end of the bridge is in one territory and the other end is in the other. Really, it is ludicrous that an important scheme of this kind cannot be carried through because there happen to be two Governments owing to the Act of 1920. [Interruption.]This is not a Bill to end partition. If it were, it might be rather more difficult to get it through.

I want to put to the Committee this fundamental proposition. This is a Clause to deal with practical physical difficulties which have been created by the legislation which we propose to amend. I am asked to give assurances that these schemes, when developed, will be developed in accordance with Socialist practice. The Parliament of Northern Ireland is, for the matters within its competence, a self-governing Parliament. What its attitude towards the social development of electricity may be in this case, I do not know. It is no concern of mine at this juncture. We give these powers to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. It is the duty of the people of Northern Ireland to see that these powers are exercised appropriately and effectively when they have been granted.

I commend the Clause to the Committee as a practical Clause, as one which extends the area of self-government in Northern Ireland and enables co-operation to take place between the Government of that province and the Government of Southern Ireland on matters which will be of mutual advantage. I cannot help thinking that it may well be that, in working out some of these schemes, people on both sides of the Border may find that in the practical affairs of life the needs of people, no matter where they may be found in the world, are curiously alike, and that there may be other spheres in which at the moment co-operation appears impossible and into which they may be led if they can make a success of this Clause. I earnestly ask the Committee to agree to the Clause.

The Home Secretary and I are not in disagreement on the principle, because it is by force that the Northern Ireland Government is compelled to enter into a joint scheme for the development of electricity on the River Erne. Years ago I advocated, in the Northern Ireland House of Commons, that there should be co-operation on this scheme. I stressed the necessity of immediate co-operation to save the land of the Six Counties from flooding. During those years I did not get any information or encouragement in regard to the point of view that I put forward. I hope that when the Home Secretary is given the powers for this co-operation, at least he will take an interest in seeing that they are carried out. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that on 11th February, 1946. the Prime Minister, Sir Basil Brooke, warned the electorate that the Battle of Ulster was coming. This is what he said— The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I fail to find any reference to the Battle of Ulster in this Clause.

I gave that as the heading because the newspapers used that heading He intimated to the electorate—

The hon. Member is not in Order It is not in Order to discuss the Battle of Ulster at the moment.

He intimated that the development of electricity on the River Erne may be an inroad into, or the encroachment upon, the preserves of the Government of Northern Ireland and that a Socialist Government is a dangerous Government. He says:

"We must fight the Socialists—

I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue this argument. It has nothing to do with the Clause under discussion.

I wanted this scheme, with the co-operation of the Eire Government. I wanted to pursue a line of Socialist co-operation in the development of electricity on the River Erne. That is the principle I was propounding to the Home Secretary earlier—

I was not present when the hon. Member made that speech, but he is now repeating something he has already said. I must rule that the hon. Gentleman is out of Order.

As I understand the point made by the hon. Member opposite, what he was trying to say was that, although this Clause will give to the Northern Ireland Government powers to develop electricity, there are circumstances in which the Northern Ireland Parliament will act so that these powers are not likely to be adequately used, and he was asking the Home Secretary whether, beyond this Clause, there is anything the Home Secretary can do, and that, I submit, is perfectly in order.

I was directing the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he was talking about matters outside the Clause. The hon. Member stated that he had already made this point, and therefore there was the possibility of repetition.

Further to that point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. I listened to what the hon. Member said and, like the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), I can see that his point was lucid and clear, and I do not think he ought to be ruled out of Order.

Order. It is not the normal practice of the Committee to call in question the conduct of the Chair.

I apologise for that mistake Mr. Beaumont, but I was trying to explain that the Home Secretary had announced proposals which have been reached by common agreement, and if that is so, I shall be happy to support Clause I, but I do not want the Home Secretary to think that I got up here with the usual passion of an Irishman addressing an audience. I think it was rather unbecoming of the Home Secretary to make reference in the way he did to a man who, for the past 30 years, has made personal sacrifices in trying to join together the two parties in Ireland. In spite of what he said about my remarks, I am prepared to support the Clause.

I should be very sorry if anything I said offended the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie). I do not think that the reference I made to his remarks was anything to which an Irishman, above all people, would take any exception. Let me say, with regard to the remarks he has just made, that Northern Ireland is a self-governing country. It is not under leading strings from the Home Office, and its powers will have to be exercised by the Northern Ireland Parliament as a responsible Parliament. I can certainly say that, while I hope they will be used for the benefit of the people of Northern and Southern Ireland, the ultimate responsibility is upon the people of Northern Ireland to see that that takes place.

This Clause gives power to the Government of Northern Ireland to interfere with municipal undertakings— water, transport, electricity, and other things of that kind. I understand that the Belfast Corporation, which has the most up-to-date system of transport and also has its own electricity supply, has passed a resolution to oppose this Bill on the ground that this Clause is an undue interference with the municipal services of that corporation. I was opposed to the resolution on the ground that we are about to bring transport under a merger, and I could understand the necessity for including the Belfast Corporation system in that merger. I now understand that this power will not be used for nationalising transport for six months. I am given to understand that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland gave an assurance to the Belfast Corporation that, although the powers will be given to them under this Bill, they will not be used to bring into a national scheme of transport the municipal transport services of Belfast. Is it not political hypocrisy in the extreme, when people ask for powers to be given to them and, at the same time, tell those who are opposed to such powers that they will not be used?

On a point of Order. I would like to say to the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) that what he has said about the Belfast Corporation—

That is not a point of Order.

On a point of Order. Mr. Beaumont. I think the reference made in this Committee to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland as being guilty of political hypocrisy in the extreme is—

I am sorry, but I did not hear the reference.

The hon. Member used the expression "political hypocrisy."

Has not somebody said that the Tory Party was an "organised hypocrisy?"

The phrase, though undesirable, is not out of Order.

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to attack Members of a friendly Government?

I can see difficulties ahead and I want to avoid them.

I will not refer to any leader or particular person by name, but I can say that I think it is wrong that people to whom powers are given under Clause 2 for a particular purpose should say to people who are likely to be opposed to those powers being granted, "Do not be uneasy in your minds; do not make any opposition to the Bill on Clause 2, because we give you the guarantee that, in a Bill likely to be brought before us at a future date, your transport system will be protected within the confines of a Tory administration."

I would like to refer to the point raised by the hon. Member opposite about the Belfast Corporation and the Government of Northern Ireland having come to an agreement that their transport system will not be nationalised. That is not so. The undertaking given to the Belfast Corporation was that, if the Government took over the transport system of the Belfast Corporation, it would be by agreement, and that is the only point in it. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) is not correct in what he said.

I beg to move, in page 4. line 33, after "Acts," to insert:

"Provided that where the character and associations of any voluntary hospital are such as to link it with a religious denomination all necessary attention should be paid in the general administration and in the making of appointments to the Board of Management to preserve the character and associations of the hospital.

Provided further that all endowments I such hospitals should remain the property of these hospitals"

The object of this Amendment is to seek safeguards in the event of the Northern Ireland Parliament devising a scheme of any kind to take over the control of voluntary hospitals. There is one voluntary hospital in Belfast, and hon. Members opposite are aware of the circumstances in which that hospital is controlled, and if the Northern Ireland Government are given these powers, it would certainly create a very awkward situation for the people who founded and those who now control that hospital. There should be some safeguard in a matter of that kind. I would refer the Home Secretary to Section 60 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act of this year which states:

"Where the character and associations of any hospital transferred to the Secretary of State by virtue of this Act are such as to link it with a particular religious denomination, regard shall be had in the general administration of the hospital and in the making of appointments to the Board of Management to the preservation of the character and associations of the hospital."

There is a safeguard for hospitals of the type to which I have referred. Endowments, bequests or donations of such hospitals should remain the property of those hospitals. I hope the Home Secretary, will accept these Amendments.

I rise to ask the Home Secretary to give the proposal embodied in this Amendment his very careful consideration. I hope that nothing will happen, following upon this Bill becoming an Act, to intensify the bitterness which already exists in Ireland. Some difficulty may arise in connection with the administration of voluntary hospitals, and I hope the Home Secretary, taking as he does a benevolent view of the future possibility of co-operation between Northern and Southern Ireland, will do all he can to ensure the administration of voluntary hospitals on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone. Already in the Scottish Health Act there is a provision with regard to the administration of voluntary hospitals of a denominational character on similar lines to this Amendment, and I hope the Home Secretary will accept it, either in the present form or in a modified form. If it is good enough for Scotsmen, it should apply to the people of Northern Ireland.

I cannot resist congratulating the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) and the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) on this thoroughly Conservative Amendment. Perhaps it is an indication of what is to come. When the Scottish Health Bill was debated, I remember that many similar Amendments were proposed from this side of the Committee, and the principle that endowments should be left with voluntary hospitals was put forward very strongly. I did not then hear the voice of the hon. Member for Platting in support of that principle. I agree with it. Where a hospital has religious links, it is right and proper that they should be preserved in every possible way. I entirely agree with the remarks about the hospital in Belfast which derives great strength from its religious links, and it is indeed one of the best hospitals in Belfast. Any effort to sever those links would be disastrous. Though the principle behind the Amendment is right, the Amendment itself is misconceived. I have no doubt that provisions similar to the Section in the Scottish Health Act, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone, will be found in the Ulster Health Bill when it becomes law. At any rate, we can be certain of one thing, and that is that the principles which the hon. Member enunciated will find ample support from the Conservative and Unionist benches in the Ulster House of Commons.

I thank the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) for his complimentary remarks in my regard. They are, no doubt, very sincere, but they are also exceedingly mistaken. The only theoretically weak point about this Amendment is that it may be objected that it goes against Section 5 of the principal Act. It is laid down in that Act that there shall be no discrimination in favour of or against any religious denomination. What we are asking for is not discrimination but a recognition of what already exists. If the principle of the Amendment is accepted, all the good things which the hon. Member for South Belfast hoped would occur in Northern Ireland, might indeed occur.

The two provisos in this Amendment deal with two rather separate phases of the same matter. Clause 4 is required in order that we may get round the difficulty in the Government of Ireland Act to which the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) referred—namely, that in Northern Ireland, under the law, it is unconstitutional to discriminate between one religious denomination and another, or one religious institution and another. Therefore, if Section 61 of the English Act, which contains the first of these provisos, is to be enacted in Northern Ireland, it is necessary to have this Clause. Here again, I think, it is our duty, having opened the way at the request of the Northern Ireland Government, to leave them to frame their Bill in accordance with their desire, which is, I understand, to cover the point raised in the first proviso. It is no good having self-government and then running away from it. That is the difficulty in which I find myself in regard to a good many of these Amendments. Northern Ireland has been given self-government, and Parliament must recognise that fact.

With regard to the second proviso, as the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) pointed out, Parliament refused to insert it in the English National Health Bill and, I understand also in the Scottish Bill. I think it would be most invidious if the Northern Ireland Government were compelled to do something which we in this country did not wish to be compelled to do, and against which this Parliament divided. I could not ask the Committee to accept the second proviso. As far as the first is concerned, I understand the Northern Ireland Government desire to follow Section 61 of the English Act which incorporates the principle enunciated in the first of these provisos. I hope, with that assurance, and in view of the impossibility of accepting the second proviso in the light of very recent history, my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone will withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Do I understand from the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) that this Clause, as passed in both the English and the Scottish Acts, will find favour with the Tory Government of Northern Ireland? If he could answer in that respect for the Government of Northern Ireland, I should like to hear his reply.

I cannot guarantee what Conservatives—or Socialists for that matter—will do in any given circumstances.

I thought I had made it clear. This Clause had been brought forward so as to empower the Government of Northern Ireland to proceed along lines similar to those of the English Act in those matters on which the principal Act would have precluded them from following us if this Clause were not introduced.

I want to understand this. I shall have to sit on the Opposition -benches in the Parliament of the Northern Ireland Government, defending the principles for which I, and others on this side of the Committee, have stood for many years. I want to know whether an Amendment of the kind which has just been withdrawn will find favour in the Tory administration in Northern Ireland. If the Home Secretary tried to appeal to the Tories of Northern Ireland to follow the Socialists in that, I do not think he would succeed. I have tried it for the last 25 years, but have met with no success.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, to leave out from "that" to "shall," and to insert:

"no person becoming an officer of the Government of Northern Ireland by virtue of this subsection."

This is a drafting Amendment. The proviso safeguards the future of existing members of the staff of the Registry of Deeds who, by virtue of the Clause, become officers of the Government of Northern Ireland. The words proposed to be substituted effect no alteration of the substance of the proviso, but the Amendment is moved in order that the wording shall be similar to the wording of the proviso to Clause 9 (1), which it is proposed to amend in order to avoid an ambiquity which may arise as a consequence of further Amendments proposed to that Clause. This is, as it were, anticipatory of the Amendment I propose to move to Clause 9.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, after "rights," to insert:

"or as respects membership of a trade union or similar organisation."

This Amendment is intended to safeguard, we hope, the rights of a very small body of civil servants. I do not think they number more than 30 in all. We have put down this Amendment in order that we might have an assurance from the Home Secretary that the words as they stand in the Clause are sufficiently wide to cover the trade union position of transferred British civil servants. The Committee will appreciate that very often it is quite sufficient merely to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Government of Northern Ireland to find that one has automatically committed an offence. This is the case so far as civil servants are concerned. At one time the Government of Northern Ireland used to urge every Measure on the ground that it would be impossible to carry out the business of Government if they did not go step by step with the British Government. It now urges that it would be impossible to carry out the functions of Government if they did not go step by step with the Opposition.

When we repealed the Trade Disputes Act the Government of Northern Ireland rejected a Bill designed to achieve the same object. In consequence, under section 5 of that Act, if the words of this Clause are not sufficiently wide any member of these transferred services who happens to be a member of the Civil Service Clerical Association, or any trade union, would automatically be committing an offence, and would be deprived of his job. In those circumstances, I hope it will be possible for the Home Secretary, either to accept the words of our Amendment, or to give us an assurance that there will not be any victimisation of civil servants on those grounds.

I hope very much that the Home Secretary will meet the point of substance here. The effect of the passage of the Trade Disputes Act, 1927—in which civil servants who are transferred under this Clause to the Government of Northern Ireland, will again become involved unless we do something about it—was not quite to dismiss civil servants who belonged to a given type of association. Its effect was to make it illegal for them so to be members and thus to make them leave the organisation unless that organisation put itself in line with the provisions of the 1927 Act. So that in no case does the question of dismissal arise automatically.

Speaking from recollection, in Section 5 of that Act, there are actually provisions for removing a civil servant who is a member of an affiliated organisation.

I quite agree. Section 5 of the 1927 Act—which is the same thing in Northern Ireland—made it clear that a civil servant must not be a member of a trade union unless certain conditions applied. One thing was that it must not be affiliated to an outside political body. Another thing was, that it must not be affiliated to an outside industrial body. If it were affiliated to either of such bodies it became, in effect, a forbidden organisation to civil servants, under the 1927 Act.

Let us see what will happen here if the Home Secretary does not meet this point—although I take it that he probably will. The effect will be, that, as soon as these men are transferred, they pass from the comparative freedom of the Trade Unions Act, 1946, in Britain back to the restrictions of the Trade Unions Act, 1927. They would then be in this position. They would either have immediately to resign their membership of whatever trade union was involved; or, if the Government in Northern Ireland so decided, they would suffer the penalty imposed for not resigning membership of such an organisation. There are not very many people involved here. I imagine that some of those concerned are members of my own organisation. I do not want to enter into the respective merits of the 1947 or 1927 Trade Unions Acts. I have my own view about them, and about our repeal Measure of 1946. But I had no doubt about the repeal of Clause 5 of the 1927 Act. I felt then, and I feel now, that it is for civil servants themselves to make up their own minds whether they want to be affiliated to outside bodies or not; and if they do, which bodies they want to be affiliated to. If we were discussing how they should exercise that discretion, I might have many things to say. But we are not, and I am merely saying that they ought to have that discretion. As things are, the main effect will be that the provisions of the 1946 Act, unless we do something about it, will not be applied by the Northern Ireland Government.

I am advised that the words "tenure of office" cover this point. The tenure of office of civil servants in this country is now governed by the position which arose out of the repeal of the 1927 Act. A civil servant is now back in the position where the law is silent on what he may do. He may join an organisation, and that organisation can collectively decide what it will do about its own affiliations. He is not compelled to join an organisation, and the organisation which he joins is not compelled, against the wish of the majority of its members, to take any particular course of action with regard to affiliations. These people enjoy the tenure of office which has been created by the 1946 Act. When they are transferred to the Northern Irish Service, they will continue to enjoy the tenure of office, which is not worse than that which they now occupy. It would clearly be worse to impose any conditions one way or the other, whether or not the person should be a member of an organisation. There are 33 people involved, and I have made no inquiries as to their affiliations. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has the task of looking after the majority. All I do know is that he has spoken very well for them this morning. Therefore, I advise my hon. Friend that we may involve ourselves in further details about other points connected with tenure, if we attempt to specify in this way. I hope, in view of the assurance I have given, that my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

It seems to demonstrate to the Committee the desirability that where civil servants are working closely together, the same law should govern both the Northern Ireland and English civil servants. I hope, as a result of this Amendment, something will be done in Northern Ireland to give civil servants the same facilities as they enjoy here. In view of the explanation given by the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to that part of the Clause which provides that no member of the staff shall be

"in a worse position as respects tenure of office, remuneration, or superannuation rights…if he had not become an officer of the Government of Northern Ireland, and any question arising under the preceding provisions of this proviso, shall in default of agreement be referred to and determined by the Civil Service Committee for Northern Ireland whose determination shall be final and conclusive."

We had a corresponding problem to deal with when the Southern Irish Counties became the Irish Free State after the first world war. We included in the Act, which defined the powers of the Government of Eire, provisions dealing with the position of civil servants transferred from the Imperial Service. We included provisions rather similar to those in this Clause, namely, that no member of the staff of the Imperial Government transferred to the Government of Southern Ireland should be in a worse position in respect of tenure of office, remuneration or superannuation rights. Those provisions gave rise to difficulties, and I am not sure that this Clause will not give rise to similar difficulties. For example, under the Act which dealt with Southern Ireland, we provided that if a civil servant of the Imperial Service felt that he was not getting the treatment he considered he ought to get, he was free to retire on his accrued superannuation rights. Many Imperial civil servants thought that they would not be well treated by the Southern Ireland Government, and they exercised that right. I notice that in this Clause we do not give a corresponding right to the civil servant who does not wish to transfer from the Imperial Government Service to the service of the Northern Ireland Government. That is a very big difference. We are not giving the right we gave under similar circumstances, when there was a question of transferring from the Imperial Service to the service of Southern Ireland.

My second point is this. It is very easy to know whether a man is worse off the day after the transfer. If he had £500 a year on the day of transfer and had £500 a year the day after, it is easy to see that he is not worse off. But the further away we get in time, the more difficult becomes this question of whether a man is or is not worse off than he would have been if he had not transferred. Perhaps I may illustrate this point by reference to something which was very much to the fore in the case of civil servants in Southern Ireland. The Southern Irish Civil Service and the English Civil Service were originally governed by the same cost of living arrangements, but at a later point in time the cost of living bonus arrangements in England were altered in one sense, and in Southern Ireland in another. The result was that in the case of Southern Ireland there emerged a cost-of-living figure which was radically different from the figure in England. The Southern Irish civil servant says that if he had continued to be governed by the English cost-of-living figure, he would have been better off, and that under the Act he is entitled to be put in a position no worse than he would have occupied if he had not transferred.

I give these illustrations to show the kind of difficulties which might arise at a later point in time. I notice that the Government have wisely included the provision whereby any question arising under the preceding provisions shall, in default of agreement, be referred to and determined by the Civil Service Committee for Northern Ireland. In other words, the Government hope that if these questions arise they will be settled by agreement, and if not, machinery will be provided whereby they can be settled, namely, the Civil Service Committee for Northern Ireland. Is the Home Secretary satisfied with the composition of the Civil Service Committee, and that it will enable trade union interests affected to speak freely and to be adequately represented on the committee?

Represented on or before the committee?

I should like them to be represented on the committee, because I have noticed, and may have cause to notice again before very long, that having the opportunity to give evidence may not be quite as valuable as being a member of the committee. All I am concerned with is to ensure that there shall be reasonable machinery to decide issues of this kind, if and when they should arise.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has put to me three points. The first concerned the position of a man who does not wish to transfer to the Northern Ireland Service. The original Act of 1920 involved a very large number of people, and it was necessary to make specific provision in that Act for dealing with a situation that might arise. We are here dealing with 33 people, and I am able to say that if anyone should desire to remain in the English Service there is no doubt that we shall be able to absorb him into a position no worse than that which he now occupies. For what it is worth—and I hope it may be taken as being sufficient—I give the undertaking that that will be done in the case of any man desiring to remain. The second point put by the hon. Member concerned the question of what is meant by a man being in no worse position a few years hence, when changes take place. The interpretation we place on those words is that the man has to be in the same position, with regard to tenure of office, emoluments, and the conditions that are laid down, that he would have been in had he remained in the same office in the service of the United Kingdom Government. I make that general statement, and I hope it will be sufficient to cover that point.

Now we come to the question of the tribunal. I do not think it is usual on these occasions for disputants to be on the committee. My experience of Departmental Committees—and I have served on two—was that the witnesses who came in front of us appeared to be far more impartial on the subject which we considered than some members of the committee. I am certain that when the Departmental Committee on Private Schools first sat every member who entered the room for the first time knew exactly what he would say in the final report. That is not my view of a useful committee to deal with an arbitral matter of this kind. The Chairman of this body is a gentleman who is well known to both the hon. Member for Rugby and myself, Sir Maurice Holmes, who was the last Permanent Secretary to the Board of Education and the first Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I had close association with him, and I am sure that under his chairmanship any point that either side desired to make would be heard, and that they would be given proper facilities for making it. None of us is immortal, and there will be a successor, in due course, to Sir Maurice Holmes, although I hope it will be a long time. The fact that a man so highly respected in the English Civil Service, and so well known for his impartiality, should desire to get to the bottom of such subjects as this is an indication of the temper with which the Northern Ireland Government have approached this important subject.

These 33 people are, of course, a tiny fraction of the English Civil Service, and a small fraction of the Northern Ireland Service, but I hope they will feel that this Clause, with the elucidation I have been able to give to the hon. Member for Rugby, will adequately safeguard their position on transfer or if they do not tesire to transfer.

I beg to move, in page 7 line 36, to leave out from "that," to "shall," in line 37, and to insert:

"no person becoming an officer of the Government of Northern Ireland by virtue of this subsection."

I think it would be of advantage to the Committee, Mr. Beaumont, if we took this Amendment and the last two Amendments in my name on this Clause together, because this Amendment is anticipatory of what we propose in the two later Amendments The first five lines on page 9 of the Bill define the expression "the Registrar of Titles in Northern Ireland" as having the meaning assigned to it by Part III of the Government of Ireland (Supreme Court Matters, etc.) Order, 1922, that is to say, such an officer of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland as may be appointed or assigned for discharges which affect Northern Ireland of the duties which, immediately before 15th December, 1921, were discharged by the Registrar of Titles. It has been discovered that it is no more necessary to define the Registrar of Titles in Northern Ireland than it would be to define the Chief Registrar in a Clause dealing with land registration in England. The over-meticulousness of the Clause has produced an apparent conflict in its provisions, because, paragraph (b)of Subsection (1) provides that the Registrar of Titles in Northern Ireland shall cease to be an officer of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, I ask the Committee to delete the unnecessary definition. We wish to remove any appearance of conflict by deleting, by the last Amendment, the words, "of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland."

The effect of making the last two Amendments is to prevent a future Registrar of Titles being able to argue that under Subsection (1) he could get remuneration not less than that which was paid to the existing Registrar on the date on which Clause 9 comes into operation. This must be avoided, for any future person appointed to the office of Registrar of Titles of Northern Ireland will be a civil servant of the Government of Northern Ireland. We preserve the right of the existing incumbent but, clearly, that preservation is personal to him, and when a new appointment has to be made, in the fullness of time, the Northern Ireland Government must be left with complete freedom as to remuneration, conditions of service, and so on, that they see fit to impose.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 44, to leave out "in," and to insert "of."

This Amendment corrects a clerical error.

I teg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The object of this Clause is to enable the Parliament of Northern Ireland to pass legislation permitting Christian Science nursing homes to be set up in Ulster. As hon. Members will know, the position of nursing homes in this country and in Wales is controlled, and properly controlled, by the Public Health Act, 1936, and in Scotland by the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act, 1938. In Northern Ireland there is the Midwives and Nursing Homes Act (Northern Ireland) which, in a similar way, controls nursing homes generally. These Acts are all very similar in their provisions, because they make it an offence for anyone to run a nursing home unless it is on the register, and in order for it to be placed on the register certain conditions have to be complied with. One of those conditions is—it is the same in all three Acts for all three parts of the British Isles— that the nursing home shall be under the charge of a qualified medical officer or a qualified nursing matron.

The effect of this condition is that a Christian Science nursing home cannot be set up, and cannot be put on the register, because, of course, it is contrary to the tenets of Christian Science that there should be an ordinary qualified medical officer in charge. That was recognised, and under Section 193 of the Public Health Act, 1936, this Parliament specifically exempted Christian Science nursing homes from the provisions which related to ordinary nursing homes. This was also recognised in Scotland, because under Sec- tion 7 of the Scottish Act, Christian Science nursing homes were excepted. The effect of that is that in Scotland, Wales and England a Christian Science nursing home can be set up, provided the Minister of Health approves. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland no such Section exempting Christian Science nursing homes from the provision of the Act was included. The reason such a Section was not included was because it was thought—I think rightly thought—that under Section 5 of the 1920 Act it would be showing a discrimination in favour of a religious party. Hon. Members will remember that under Section 5 of the 1920 Act, the Government of Northern Ireland cannot show any discrimination, favourable or otherwise, in respect of any religious party. This result was, I think, due to a legislative accident because, of course, Section 5 was intended for quite other purposes. This legislative accident had the effect of excluding Christian Science nursing homes and preventing them from being set up.

The object of the new Clause is to give Northern Ireland the power, if they so desire, to pass a provision similar to Section 193 of our Public Health Act, 1936. I am not myself a Christian Scientist, nor, I am sorry to say, have I any profound knowledge of their teaching or religious beliefs, but I know, and I think that most hon. Members will agree, that they hold their views very sincerely. It seems to me, therefore, to be wrong that where a large section of people hold certain views commonly, they should be debarred from having what they desire to have—nursing homes set up for the healing of their sick by their own particular methods. In this country, no one ever thought it wrong that they should have Christian Science nursing homes here. They have them in Scotland, and no one has ever thought it wrong that they should have them in Scotland, but in Northern Ireland, alone of the United Kingdom, they are unable to have them, purely because of the operation of Section 5, which was quite fortuitous; and, I am certain that when it was enacted hon. Members had no idea that it might have this effect. I ask the Home Secretary to accept this very innocuous and harmless new Clause, because it will give great pleasure to a number of Christian Scientists in Northern Ireland who, after all, simply because they live in Northern Ireland should be in no worse a position than their co-religionists on this side of the Channel.

I think that is rather a misuse of words to call Section 5 of the principal Act "fortuitous." After all, that is the Section around which most of the disputes we have had on this Bill have ranged.

I did not intend to call Section 5 fortuitous. I said that the effect of Section 5 in this respect was fortuitous.

One is dealing with very particular circumstances in Northern Ireland which made Section 5 necessary. As I said in answer to a previous Amendment, there are some things in this country on which the law is silent. We make certain assumptions about the way in which the Government of the country will be conducted, and if that manner of life is not observed, hon. Members would question the Minister who was responsible for departing from the ordinary accepted way of carrying on. If it were thought, for instance, that I had attempted to apply a religious condition on some person for promotion inside my office, I have no doubt that the House would quite rightly be very incensed, and that there would be very considerable trouble for me, out of which I intend to keep. That is not the position in Northern Ireland. The whole of the Debates on this Bill have been based on the belief in certain quarters that discrimination on political and religious grounds exist. The Government of Northern Ireland are not anxious that there should be a breach made in Section 5 of the Act. They want to have Section 5 as a quite clear guide to them on the way they should act. On that basis they will endeavour to live up to the requirements of that Section.

12.30 p.m.

In 1929—and this shows that it is not quite as fortuitous as the hon. Gentleman may have imagined—the Northern Ireland Midwives and Nursing Homes Act was passing through the Northern Ireland Parliament, and the question of inserting a similar provision was raised. It was decided by the Northern Ireland Government, after careful consideration, that they should not take any action which would be construed as giving a privilege to a particular religious denomination, and they declined to ask the House to give them the powers necessary to have Section 5 of the principal Act altered so that that could take place. In am informed by them that their view is the same today, and they have indicated that even if the power were conferred they would not use it when they come to frame their Measure, because they are anxious to preserve Section 5 of the principal Act.

I may get into trouble again for expressing a hope with regard to Ireland; I expressed a hope, in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill), about a suggestion he very wisely made during the Second Reading Debate, but I am bound to say that the reception which the hope I then expressed has received does not make me anxious to repeat the expression of hopes on this Bill. Nevertheless, I hope there will come a time, not too distant, when as reasonable a step as the one proposed in this new Clause can be taken without misgiving. The hon. Member will himself observe, however, that nearly all the discussions of any interest on this Bill have centered round the effective working of Section 5 of the principal Act, and while those misgivings exist I think it would be unwise—and if I may say so without offence, especially from that side of the Committee—to attempt to amend Section 5 of the principal Act.

One always listens to the Home Secretary on any matters of this kind with a very great deal of respect and admiration. I regard him as one of the most sensible men on that Front Bench; he expresses himself with a magnificent reasonableness, and one would like to concur immediately with the point of view which he has just put. But, in fact, this Clause is not a mandatory Clause at all. It is a permissive Clause; it does not pledge the Government of Northern Ireland to do anything. It merely makes it possible for them to do something if they should want to do it. And unless we do this, unless we put this Clause in, a subsequent Government of Northern Ireland would not be able to do this even if it wanted to. They would have to come back for an Amendment of the Act in order to make it possible for them to do what this new Clause would permit them to do.

The question therefore arises: Is the thing which the new Clause desires to give the Northern Ireland Government freedom to do a thing which it is desirable that they should have freedom to do? In my view, the answer to that question is "Yes". There is no sphere of life in which dogmatism would be more out of place than in medicine. The only safe thing to say about medicine is that it has probably killed more people than war, famine, pestilence and epidemics put together. Nobody knows very much about it, and those who dogmatise the most know the least. You will get from the same individual at different periods of his life precisely opposite medical views. In my life I have heard nearly all theories, I think, from demoniac possession to the modern Christian Science theory, and everything in between. We have gone from the germ theory, by which at one time everything was ascribed to germs; at a later stage people began to say that it was not the germs which mattered, what mattered was whether there was a soil which was receptive to them in the human system. At a later stage still, I have heard of well-known Harley Street doctors who have moved from the Marxist material conception of history to the belief that all disease was mental in its origin.

The hon. Member cannot discuss the merits or demerits of any particular form of belief.

Heaven forbid that I, who am a novice in this as in all other matters, should presume to decide between these rival theories. I would only say that there is at least a respectable body of medical opinion which holds the view that there is room for the mental treatment of disease, both physical and mental, and the sole motive of this new Clause is to make it possible for the Government of Northern Ireland to permit establishments run on given lines to be set up in the Six Counties. As things are they cannot be, and unless we adopt this new Clause they never will be.

Just one word more; all progress in life depends upon heretics. Every new discovery, whether in medicine or anything else, originates in the rebellion of some odd, queer fellow who thinks he sees a new vision of the truth. If there is one thing that we who were brought up in the Socialist movement—although that movement has subsequently left us—will have learned from Shaw, it is the necessity of tolerating heretics at all costs, instead of trying to suppress them. This is a plea for heretics in a given field—or, rather, it is a plea that in a given field the Government of Northern Ireland should not be obliged to suppress the heretics. I hope we shall give the Northern Ireland Government the power to tolerate this kind of institution.

I, too, would make an appeal to the Home Secretary in connection with this new Clause. I have little to add to the factual survey given by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) who moved the Clause, but my appeal is on somewhat different grounds. I think the Home Secretary based his argument on the need to recognise discrimination on religious grounds in the case of Northern Ireland, and I believe that sort of argument is unsound, for this reason. Are we, as Members of this House, to lend our hand to tolerating religious intolerance, because that is really what it amounts to? The terms of this Clause are intended not to seek special favours for those who are Christian Scientists in Northern Ireland, but to prevent unfair discrimination against them. I wonder if I might have the Home Secretary's attention for a moment on one particular question I should like to ask? Could the Home Secretary tell me what would be the position of a body of Christian Scientists in Northern Ireland if they wished to open a Christian Science nursing house of the type that has been opened in various parts of this country. Could he answer that question? Would those Christian Scientists be free to open such a nursing house?

The Home Secretary referred to the Act which was passed in 1929 in which, he pointed out, there was no Clause of the type included in the Scottish and English editions of the same Measure. The fact that no similar provision was in that Act was due to one thing, namely, that in 1929 there were not such a large number of Christian Scientists in Northern Ireland who would have made their representations to the Northern Ireland Government and to have that provision inserted. The position today is different. There is a greater number of Christian Scientists in Northern Ireland, I am informed, who are at this moment thinking of seeking permission to open a Christian Science house in Northern Ireland, and I would ask the Home Secretary if he would be kind enough to give the answer to my question as to what this body of people will do if they wish to pursue this idea to which they are giving their attention at the present time. Would he consider further representations with a view to this new-Clause being inserted before the Bill goes on its way to another place, so that in due time the Bill may emerge in a way which will give, as I believe, a right and proper protection, and cover the interests of these people whose religious persuasion has been fully recognised in both England and Scotland, and who now ask that they should be covered by a provision in the Northern Ireland Bill also?

I would like very much to be able to respond to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper). I would like to be able to feel that I could repeal Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, because it was no longer necessary owing to the growth of toleration of both sides in that country. The hon. Member for Rugby said he was on the side of the heretics. The trouble is, it all depends, when you allow people to deal with heretics, on exactly how much power you leave to them. The House decided that, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, there was to be no witch hunting and no heresy hunting, that people were to enjoy their own opinions, that no discrimination was to be shown; and that is the position today. Any one who has listened to the Debates on this Bill must be aware that some people still fear that they might be treated as witches and as heretics if that Section were repealed. That is the difficulty. The Government of Northern Ireland do not wish to make a breach in that Section, and I think they are wise at present in standing by that.

I hope that if, when they come to discuss their National Health Bill, they desire to give the same position to Christian Scientists as they enjoy in this country, they will come to the House and ask for permission to do it, but they will have to make that request in the light of the fact that it would be a breach of Section 5, which would have to be amended. Much as I would like to accede to the liberal views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middles- brough and by the hon. Member for Rugby, in view of the discussions on this Bill I cannot recommend that any breach should be made in the requirements of Section 5.

Before the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) moves, "That the Clause be read a Second time," may I raise a point of Order in regard to it, Major Milner? So far as I read it, the Clause seeks to repeal provisions of an Act of Parliament passed by another legislature within the Empire. I cannot speak on the legal aspect, but it seems to me that if that were done it would be opening a new and doubtful chapter in the constitutional history of the British Empire, and quite apart from that point, which seems to be a very substantial point indeed, this Clause suggests also that the Special Powers Act of Northern Ireland is ultra viresthe Government of Ireland Act, 1920. If that is so, surely the proper procedure is for that point to be tested in the courts? There is provision in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, for testing any constitutional matter of that kind in the Privy Council. Surely, that is the proper place to do that, and I suggest to you, Major Milner, in view of both the points I have made, that this Clause is not properly in Order.

I have given serious consideration to the point as to whether or not I should call this new Clause, and have also had regard to the fact that it was put in very late—it appeared for the first time on the Order Paper today. I am sure the right hon. Baronet appreciates that the question of importance or merit does not affect the question of Order. I have taken advice and I have come to the conclusion that the new Clause is in Order and that I have no alternative, on the grounds of Order, but to call it. I would point out to the right hon. Baronet that this Bill is promoted largely to remove doubts regarding the validity of certain laws made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and there are quite a number of additions under the Clauses of the Bill which directly remove doubts. In the circumstances, I can only say that in my judgment this new Clause i? in Order.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time."

I must begin by apologising to the Committee for the fact that this Clause appeared on the Order Paper only at the last moment. I would like to say that those of my hon. Friends and myself who have been interested in this matter in Northern Ireland had hoped that we should be able to carry through the Committee stage of this Bill as expeditiously as possible because of the excellent advice given to the Government of Northern Ireland by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill). It was only yesterday in the Northern Ireland House of Commons that the Northern Irish Prime Minister announced that he was not accepting the advice of the right hon. Baronet and in those circumstances it occurred to me that it was only proper to put down a Clause which would clear up the doubts which exist as to the validity of the Special Powers Act. Of course, had the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet been accepted—and after all he made this after discussion with the Northern Irish Home Secretary—it would not have been necessary at this late stage to trouble the Committee with this matter.

This Clause deals with Section 5, which as the Home Secretary has so rightly said, is the sheet anchor of the constitution of Northern Ireland. My submission to the Committee is that the Special Powers Act infringed on the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the Government of Ireland Act. In those circumstances, I thought that the Committee might agree with me that the proper course would not be to put some individual litigant to the expense of going to the House of Lords, but to validate for a period the actions of the Northern Ireland Government and thus give them the opportunity, after 1st October, 1947, to reconsider the position— either by coming to the House to ask for further authority to enable them to carry their Special Powers Act, or else to repeal those portions of the Special Powers Act which they may come to the conclusion infringe the constitution of Northern Ireland. That, shortly, is the object of this Clause.

To deal as shortly as I may with the point of substance involved, in the first place Section 5 (1) of the Government of Ireland Act provides clearly and distinctly that the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall make no law which tends, either directly or indirectly, to take any property without compensation. That is a principle which I should have thought would have commended itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It does seem to me a little odd that they should be so anxious where the property of the wealthy people is concerned while disregarding cases which concern poor and -humble folk. One of the first things the Northern Ireland Government did under the Special Powers Act was to make Regulations by which any person authorised by the Home Secretary could seize, under Regulation 18C, any property which he himself considered might be in any way involved in any offence. Let me just give the Committee one or two examples of how that power has been used in dealing, for example, with members of the Labour Party of Northern Ireland.

One of the pre-election raids took place on the houses of members of the Labour Party, and in one case the policeman seized from an officer of the Labour Party a copy of Plato's "Republic." When some criticism was raised the policeman replied, "You are an educated man and should know that we cannot have anybody's republic here." In a second case, concerning this time the chairman of the Labour Party of Northern Ireland, a man in a position of some importance, one of the books seized—I leave aside all standard Socialist works which were taken as a matter of course—was the well-known Irish classic "Twenty Years a Growing," and the argument there advanced was that since the book was written by an Irishman it must be somewhat suspicious. Then the policeman looked round—and I am sure this will interest the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory)—and proceeded to seize Alexander Dumas' "Twenty Years After." On being asked the grounds for this he said that the book appeared to be a sequel to the first work. It seems to me to be rather a long way round to have to go all the way to the House of Lords to get one's books returned.

I put it to the Home Secretary that it might be desirable that we should consider whether or not these provisions of the Special Powers Act infringe Section 5 (1) of the Government of Ireland Act. If they do, we have offered hon. Gentlemen opposite a Clause which will rectify that, and it is up to them to accept it or not. If they are not willing to accept it, then I think there may be an argument for our not pressing it from this side of the House because the whole validity of the Special Powers Act might be tested. If they think they can stand on a regulation which provides for forfeit when there is a provision in the constitution saying that no property may be taken without compensation, that perhaps is a matter which might be tested, and I will have a word to say to the Home Secretary about this in a moment.

There is just one other aspect of the question which does arise as to whether the whole Special Powers Act from beginning to end is not void. That is a much more difficult and technical point but, shortly speaking, what happened was that in 1920 this Parliament delegated to the Parliament of Northern Ireland powers to make laws for the order and good government of Northern Ireland. Those powers were delegated by the Northern Ireland Government, first to the Home Secretary, then, by a subsequent Amendment, to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is entitled to make laws which have the right to repeal Acts of this Parliament in certain circumstances. These powers have since been further delegated to any police officer or police constable—which means even part-time constables, some of whom are not perhaps quite as impartial as one would like them to be. It seems to me that to delegate powers of legislation to police officers is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman opposite knows of this because a by-election is proceeding in his constituency at the moment and the meetings of his party are actually held in the barracks of one of the police organisations.

On the other hand, the hon. Member's meetings are held without displaying the Union Jack—which he dare not—and-without playing the National Anthem.

The Clause at present under discussion does not deal with the propriety or otherwise of using patriotism as a party technique, but I should have thought that one of the first duties of a Northern Ireland patriot would be to obey scrupulously the Constitution laid down for Northern Ireland by this Parliament. If anyone is speaking of union I should have thought that the first act of a Unionist would be to be over-scrupulous in obeying the laws laid down by this Parliament for the conduct of his own country. To return to the point I was making, I do hope that the Home Secretary will consider whether this power to delegate every right to make laws to a part-time police constable—that is the extraordinary power contained in the Special Powers Act—is a proper delegation in the terms of the Government of Northern Ireland Act. I would just mention that in dealing with other matters the Northern Ireland Government have always argued that they could not delegate, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) will recall that when he was arguing on the repeal of the Special Powers Act he had quoted against him by a Minister of the Northern Ireland Parliament the maxim Delegatus non potest delegareto explain why he thought it was impossible for the Northern Ireland Government to delegate certain powers. But here they turn round the other way and delegate powers to any part-time police officer. I do not want to take up any more of the time of the Committee in dealing with this. I would only say that it seems to me that at this stage Parliament should take some steps with regard to this Act, because if they do not do it at this stage, some other urgent occasion may occur when the matter will have to be dealt with, and the time may not be so convenient or desirable as is the present, at any rate, for hon. Gentlemen opposite.

I wish to support the Motion, which I propose to do quite shortly and without plunging any further than is strictly necessary into the domestic controversies of Northern Ireland. I take the view, and submit it for the consideration of the Committee, that enough has been said on this and on other occasions to show that there is very grave doubt whether the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act and all the regulations made thereunder were properly made. If there is very grave doubt I would suggest that the right and the sensible thing to do is to validate what has been done in the past, but not to allow it to continue indefinitely. That is the object of this Clause. On the one hand, it makes it impossible to go back and raise questions as to whether this or that action was rightly taken in the past; on the other hand, it does not continue that protection indefinitely and leaves it open to the authorities in Northern Ireland to consider their position.

I should have thought that enough had been said to make it advisable for them to consider their position and, having considered it, to see whether they are content merely with this temporary extension or whether they wish to put matters on a more certain footing at the end of the period mentioned in the new Clause. For these purposes, the date 1st October, 1947, stands in the new Clause. I cannot necessarily speak for the hon. Gentleman who moved the new Clause, but as far as I am concerned, and, I expect, so far as he is concerned, there would not be much difficulty in a small variation of that date one way or the other. I imagine that the new Clause would be withdrawn if it were accepted in principle on the understanding that the date was not absolutely right and that a little more time would be required for the purpose. That is a matter of detail and not of principle.

I say nothing about the merits of what has happened beyond this, that there appears to be very serious doubt whether the grave steps which have been taken in Northern Ireland have been properly taken under proper orders and regulations. In those circumstances, I suggest that the Committee should do the sensible thing, and that representatives of Northern Ire- land here ought to accede to this view by validating the past, but not continuing indefinitely for the future a state of affairs which, at the best, is doubtful, and which may, they must recognise, have been technically a very serious injustice.

It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has invited us to do what is an impossible task for a legislative and deliberative assembly; that is, to assess the validity of Acts of Parliament for another Parliament. Very few of us are qualified to do that. My hon. Friend is a barrister, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is one of His Majesty's counsel, learned in the law; but I am a layman, and my experience with lawyers has been very much the same as the experience of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) with doctors.

The Home Secretary will recollect moving Clause 11, which validated another Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament exactly in the same way as this would do.

I did so because the advice on which I have to rely, and for which the House pays, was that that was advisable. My view on this matter was expressed by a colleague attending quarter sessions for the first time. He had listened very carefully to the speech made for the prosecution, and then, when defending counsel rose he said, after counsel had been speaking for a couple of minutes, "What is this fellow doing? I understood this case until he started." This House is not a competent body to determine the validity of Acts of this Parliament or other Parliaments. It is frequently said in the course of our Debates that it does not matter what the Minister says in explaining a Bill but what the courts will say when the matter is before them. On the advice I have received, I do not believe that the Acts of which complaint is made are invalid; but I do not regard that as the final issue, for the persons who advise me are not the persons appointed in the final issue to determine whether an Act is constitutional or not. If there is a feeling in Northern Ireland that some of these actions are not merely ludicrous but illegal, the courts are open, and Sections 49 and 50 of the Government of Ireland Act provide for appeal to the House of Lords from any court in Northern Ireland, viathe Court of Appeal, in any case involving a decision on any question as to the validity of any Act of Northern Ireland. In addition to that, and this is very important, Section 51 of that Act has a general saving of the power of His Majesty in Council to refer any question to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and for the right of any person to petition His Majesty for such a reference. What that really means is that, in the case of Northern Ireland, if a subject feels he has a grievance he petitions His Majesty through the Home Secretary of this country, who will submit the petition to His Majesty in Council with such advice as he thinks proper.

Does my right hon. Friend mean that the petition comes through him, or through the Home Secretary in Northern Ireland?

I am the Secretary of State whose duty it is to present petitions to His Majesty on matters of this kind arising within the Realm. In my time I do not recall that I have received such an application. I do not know whether prior to my time any petition has in fact been submitted, but if the allegations made today came to me in the form of a petition, it would be my duty to consider them and to make such recommendation in regard to the hearing by the Committee of the Privy Council as the circumstances of the case appear to warrant. This House cannot possibly decide whether an Act of Parliament is valid or not. One of the commonplaces of an Opposition, no matter to what party they belong, is to denounce what the Government propose to do as being unconstitutional. In this country that is a pretty safe charge to make because we have no written Constitution, except for the Parliament Act, and the Constitution is very much what one thinks it is, but in regard to Northern Ireland, the Constitution in this matter is laid down in Section 5 of the principal Act. There it is quite clearly and definitely stated, and if there is any feeling that it has been violated, I should have thought the proper thing to do would be to challenge the issue in the courts.

I have no doubt that even if they were not satisfied with the courts of Northern Ireland the appeal still lies in courts in this country, and, ultimately, under Section 51, to His Majesty in Council. I suggest that the Committee would be embarking on a very dangerous principle indeed if it said we were to consider the validity of an Act passed by another Parliament. As the right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) suggested in his point of Order, we would not make this claim in regard to an Act of Parliament of the Union of South Africa, or any of the other great Dominions. There, too, the first appeal, as I understand it, is to the courts of the country in which self-government is being practised and, ultimately, in most of these cases there is an appeal to His Majesty in Council. Quite recently there was a very important constitutional' case brought over from the Dominion of Canada to be argued before the Privy Council.

Is it not the case that there is a very distinct difference here, because Northern Ireland has direct representation in this House?

No, we are dealing with these matters which are within the competence of the Northern Ireland Parliament, which this House has said belongs to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Do not let us forget that the great self-governing Dominions owe their constitutions to Acts of this House. There we have parted with all control of government. Here we have parted with the control of certain matters to a Parliament which is capable of legislating within its own rights within its own territories. The first challenge to the validity of its actions should come in the courts of its own country. If the decision given there does not satisfy the person who has the grievance, he has the right first to come to the courts in this country and, if he so desires, to petition His Majesty in Council. I believe that the Measures complained of are constitutional, but I am not a lawyer. If they are challenged the machinery is open for use by those who have a grievance, and I suggest to this Committee that it will be a very dangerous thing for this House, without the capability of hearing the evidence in a judicial spirit, to attempt to judge the validity of Acts of another Parliament. For that reason I hope my hon. Friend will not press this new Clause.

I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has said when he says that this House is no place in which to judge the validity of an Act of another Parliament. Indeed, I was rather afraid that in his opening remarks he was falling to some extent into the very fault about which he has expressed an opinion now as to the validity of this Act. This Amendment does not assert that the Act is invalid, but it asserts something quite different— that its validity is doubtful—and if there is any question as to that I would submit, as has already been said, that if this House shows that the validity of this Act is at least in doubt, the right hon. Gentleman can act. He knows that a high judicial opinion in Northern Ireland, when high judicial opinion was still at the Bar, expressed the view on a number of occasions very emphatically that the whole of this Act was invalid. In those circumstances, surely it is clear that the validity of all or part of this Act is doubtful, and what this Amendment suggests is that we do exactly as this House is doing with regard to the Fire Services Emergency Act, not deciding whether it is valid or invalid, but acting upon the basis that it is doubtful and putting those doubts at rest. That is what we ask for here.

May I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman?

No, I am sorry I cannot give way. If the Home Secretary takes the view that this is undesirable here and it should be decided in a court, I would remind him of two things, first, that testing anything in a court is for a private individual a very expensive matter; and secondly, Section 51 empowers him not merely to act upon a petition, but to take the initiative in that matter. If the Home Secretary will tell us that he will take the initiative which he is expressly empowered by Section 51 to take, which Section anticipates that he will do it, and bring this Special Powers Act before the Privy Council to consider its validity, or the validity of the orders made under it, then I think, speaking for my friends on this side of the Committee, we shall be fully satisfied and we will not press this new Clause.

I want very briefly to put one further point against this Clause. The whole argument of the hon. Member for Horn church (Mr. Bing) was directed to show that the Special Powers Act is illegal, ultra vires,and unjust. If that is so, why should it be validated? It may well be that actions have been taken by citizens of Northern Ireland who have been unjustly treated under the Special Powers Act, but if that Act be now validated their actions may be brought to an end prematurely. It seems to me to be quite inconsistent to attempt to validate an Act which is called unjust, ultra viresand illegal.

I would not like this Bill to have a Third Reading and pass to another place without saying one or two words to speed it on its way. I think the House will agree that we on this side of the House have behaved during the whole course of this Bill with considerable restraint. During the Second Reading four of us spoke and only three Labour back benchers addressed the House then. Those who did speak spoke briefly and to the point. At no stage of this Bill did we attempt obstruction and indeed we could have done so—

I do not see what relevance that has to the Third Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member must restrict his remarks to the contents of the Bill.

I was merely leading up to the statement—I am sorry if my introductory remarks have been too long— that all we wished for was certain safeguards in the Bill. We are agreeing, though somewhat reluctantly, to the Bill as amended—reluctantly because the safeguards for which we pleaded during the Committee stage have not been granted to us. We thought that during the Second Reading of the Bill we had been given hope that some good would have come from the other side of the House. I refer to the admirable suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill), a suggestion which was welcomed by all of us and was applauded by Members on both sides of the House and by thousands of people outside. Only 48 hours after that remark was made I was addressing a meeting of 10,000 of the right hon. Gentleman's opponents, and when addressing this immense gathering, and after I had paid him the compliment he deserved, those 10,000 people cheered most enthusiastically. That being so, with what distress and dismay have we now heard the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland officially repudiate the admirable suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Antrim. That repudiation does at least prove to this House and to this country that very important things—

The hon. Member seems to be dealing with something quite outside the purview of the contents of the Bill as amended, and I must ask him to restrict himself strictly to it and not to go into other matters.

I will bow to your Ruling. I was addressing myself more to what we would have liked to see in the Bill than to what is in it. We agree to the Bill reluctantly, and I was trying to show why we were reluctant that this Bill should pass. Unfortunately, it seems that the Home Secretary, in refusing the various safeguards which we asked for, seems to have the somewhat quaint opinion that the law in Northern Ireland is observed in the spirit and the letter in which it is observed in this country. It is a most quaint opinion.

On a point of Order. Is it not one of the rules of procedure of this House that, while on the Second Reading we may discuss extraneous points or what we think ought to be in the Bill and so on, on the Third Reading we are definitely confined only to what is actually in the Bill?

The point of Order made by the right hon. Gentleman is the correct position. I have tried to indicate it to the hon. Member and I hope he will abide by it.

Very good, but I was merely saying—

rose—

I have not said it yet.

No. But what the hon. Member was merely saying was in contravention of the Rule which has been laid down, and I imagined that he was about to raise it again.

I deeply deplore that the Amendments which we suggested were not accepted, and I hope that on some future occasion we will be able to discuss this matter far more thoroughly on a far more important Debate—I refer, of course, to the principal Act of which this Bill is an Amendment.

By this Bill much can be done for the working class people of Northern Ireland provided that the authorities have the will. I would not wish to be described as an opponent of this Bill at any point. I expected to receive a little help towards the definition of the powers already granted, but I failed in my objective. I am as wise now as I was before I started. This Bill has now been given the full power of the Parliamentary machine subject, of course, to financial control which they have not yet received but which I hope they will receive.

I do not know whether the rain which is coming through the windows is the dew of Heaven or the tears of an angry Tory from another place.

I have given instructions for the windows to be closed.

Is it in Order, Sir, for the hon. Member to move up and down the benches whilst he makes his speech?

The circumstances are a little exceptional.

The disturbance is not caused by any unruly Members of this House. It is caused by an Authority who is supreme over the destinies of all people.

I accept this Bill in principle, and I hope that the Government will be compensated for their labours in this House. Like the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy), I go away today not altogether in a very cheery mood. The people of Northern Ireland were expecting the Secretary of State to make certain concessions which he has not seen fit to make—

Could umbrellas be provided for hon. Members on this side of the House?

I do not know whether the disturbance caused to hon. Members on these benches is due to the rain, or whether it is my voice and oratorical ability which disturbs them. I conclude by saying that whilst the Home Secretary and I have had conflict now and again, I have always thought at the back of my mind that he had a wrong impression in regard to our attitude. I wish to say on behalf of the working classes that the masses of the Irish people will feel very annoyed and disappointed and will regret the action which this House has taken.

On behalf of those who are associated with me. I welcome the Third Reading of this Measure. There will be no difficulty at all in keeping within Order by sticking to what is in the Bill. I am too constantly reminded of that by the forces of water and electricity which are obvious to us all. I could not allow this occasion to pass without welcoming the provisions which this Bill contains. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Beattie) end what was a very nice speech with a word of dismal foreboding. I think great good can come from this Measure. It provides for extension of water power and of electricity, and for social services equal to those that have been introduced in this country. It also provides an opportunity for industrial expansion in Northern Ireland which will be good for everybody in the realm of employment, housing, etc. I think this Bill will also be welcomed by those firms of international repute who have thought fit, despite the dismal things said by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) about the conditions over there, to place their industries in Northern Ireland. I am thinking of firms of world-wide repute such as Courtaulds, Nestles and many others. On behalf of all those whom I represent, and on behalf of industry and the working people of Northern Ireland, I welcome the Third Reading of this Bill.

I welcome and approve this Bill. I know that some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House disagree with sections of it because it has been passed on to a Parliament with which they disagree. I think that social legislation of this character should be put within the power of any Parliament in order to help the working classes and to give them adequate health services and other social needs. I want to make my position clear. I am as much against the present constitution of the Ulster Government, because of the way they have behaved in the past, as any other hon. Member, but I approve of this Bill being given to them on the understanding that their administration of it will be performed in a perfectly judicial honest and impartial spirit, to the benefit of every citizen of Northern Ireland.

In welcoming this Bill, perhaps I may recall the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he was introducing it. I quote his words from memory. He said that the way in which the provisions of this Bill are carried out will be a test for the Government of Northern Ireland. I think that all on this side of the House who have spoken in this Debate welcome this Measure in that light. We think that the various provisions in this Bill can be carried out in a fashion beneficial to the people of Northern Ireland. We hope that they will be, but in saying that, it is only right that we should say also that the ultimate authority does not rest with the Government of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will remember that the final Section, Section 75, of the Government of Ireland Act lays down very clearly:

"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliament … of Northern Ireland, … or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland and every part thereof."

If the provisions of this Bill are not carried out in the spirit in which it is intended by this Parliament, that will create a situation which we on this side of the House will not tolerate, and we shall have to go back to the Government of Ireland Act.

I want to congratulate the Home Secretary on this Bill. I think it is a good Bill, and that it will work very excellent results in Ireland. It represents a new approach, for the first time for long years, between the two sides of the Border. I hope, however, that the present administration in Northern Ireland will respond to the suggestions made in this House today. What everybody desires in Ireland, with its long story of conflict, is that peace shall be restored, and I believe that this Bill paves the way in that direction. I would like to say, particularly as an Irishman in this House, that I congratulate the Minister responsible for this Measure, but let me also say that I have the greatest confidence in the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who, I believe is one of the great gentlemen of our time. Hard things have been said by both sides in the past. I hope that, when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, much of this exasperation will be forgotten and that it will be the means of giving full effect to the objectives which the Home Secretary has indicated.

I thank the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) for the kind words he used about me, and I would like to say this. In the long and troubled history of the relations between Ireland and this country, I think we have established a record on this occasion, for we have managed, with the good will of both sides of this House, to get this Measure through without a Division, unless someone is going to challenge the Third Reading, and I should be most reluctant to say anything which might give them the inclination to do anything of the kind. The Bill enables the Parliament of Northern Ireland to give certain economic and social benefits to the people under its control, and to extend some of those benefits to the people of the other part of the island. I sincerely echo the words used on both sides of the House in expressing the hope that this Measure will be used to the full. I am quite sure that, if it is, it may very well be an important milestone on the road we have to travel in the British Isles together.

I should only like, in one sentence, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has conducted this Bill through the House, and also to congratulate my hon. Friends from Ulster constituencies on the great restraint they have shown under considerable provocation.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out from "a," to end of line, and insert "local superannuation enactment."

This and two other Amendments are purely drafting Amendments designed to prevent any possible doubt that an order made under the Bill will apply to the provisions of the local Acts, as they do to the schemes made under the local Acts.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out "as non-contributing service."

This Amendment is a drafting Amendment, necessitated by the fact that non-contributory service, as denned in the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, is not recognised under the Manchester Corporation (Superannuation) Acts, 1920 and 1946, and, as these words have a special legal definition, it is necessary to omit them.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert:

"(4) Section four of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944 (which, subject to the limitations imposed by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947, enables pensions payable in respect of service as a probation officer to be increased) shall have effect as if the reference to such service included a reference to service as such a clerk as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section."

This Amendment is necessary in order to provide that clerks of probation committees, who are not now entitled to superannuation until this Bill becomes operative, will be able to take advantage of the Pensions (Increases) Acts, 1944 and 1947.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert:

"(5) In this section the expression "local superannuation enactment" means a local Act as defined by the Local Government superannuation Act, 1937, whereunder a superannuation fund is maintained by a local Act authority as so defined, any instrument having effect under such an Act and any other enactment (whether contained in a public general or local Act) relating to the payment by such an authority to or in respect of an employee of theirs of gratuities or compensation for death or injury."

This Amendment is necessary by reason of the first three Amendments.

I beg to move in page 2, line 30, to leave out from"1939,"to end of Subsection.

This is a consequential Amendment by reason of the Amendment made to line 28.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, after "authorities," to insert:

"and to the recognised Association of Probation Officers."

I hope my hon. Friend, having had his own way up to now, will find it consistent with his way to accept this Amendment which I suggest is reasonable for the purpose of protecting the National Association of Probation Officers, a body which has been so highly commended from time to time by his own Department. We heard, when the Second Reading Debate took place, that the services rendered by probation officers were of such a high standard and were so universally applauded that the service was one to which the commendation of every hon. Member of this House should be given, and I have no doubt that all of us regard it as a form of service which is appropriate to attract the very best people. The National Association of Probation Officers was founded in 1912, about five years after the probation system was introduced. This was done on the recommendation of the Departmental Committee set up on the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, and I think it will be of interest to the Committee to know what, even by that time, that committee felt about the need of an association of probation officers. They said:

"The stimulus which is needed to maintain the efficiency of probation work and the initiative necessary to promote the adoption of whatever methods are found to be most effective, cannot be provided by a Government department alone. We are of opinion that nothing would be so likely to provide that stimulus and initiative as the function of a society comprising and managed by the probation officers themselves. It provides the means of disseminating information and a theatre for the discussion of questions of common interest. The official register of probation officers which we propose should be published would provide preliminary facts which would be a necessary preliminary to the establishment of such an organisation."

The National Association of Probation Officers is the only association that deals solely with probation and the social work of the courts. When I say that, I am not casting any reflection on other associations that do other work as well. One of the objects of the association is to ensure collective action on matters affecting the probation service, to protect and promote the welfare of probation officers and to improve conditions of service. At the present time, 87 per cent. of the full-time officers in England and Wales are members of the association, and its membership is growing rapidly. In 1945, the Home Secretary of that time expressed his wish to be kept informed through the association of the views of probation officers on matters affecting the probation service. He stated that, in his view, the representatives of the association had a right and a duty, as spokesmen of the probation officers, to approach the Home Office whenever they thought it desirable in the interests of probation officers or their members so to do.

The Committee might be interested to know the full contents of a letter that was addressed at the time to the Association of Probation Officers, and I hope the Committee will forgive me if I take a little time reading this letter because, for the purpose of this proposal of mine, and also for the general purpose of the Committee having full knowledge of what the Home Office itself thinks of this Association, this letter may be of value. It is dated 10th July, 1945. The letter reads as follows:

"The Home Secretary welcomes the steps which the National Association of Probation Officers has taken to review its constitution and organisation, and the large measure of support which it has received from the probation officers of England and Wales. As the National Executive Committee is aware, the Association owed its origin in 1912 to a recommendation made in the report of a Departmental Committee appointed by the then Secretary of State. The valuable assistance which the Association can render in the development of the probation system was recognised in the Report of the Committee on Social Services in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and has frequently been emphasised by official speakers at conferences and in other ways.

It is the wish of the Home Secretary to be kept informed through the Association of the views of the probation officers on matters affecting the probation service, and for this purpose it is desirable that consultations between the Association and the Home Office shall from time to time be initiated by the Association as well as by the Department. In the view of the Home Secretary, the representatives of the Association have a right and a duty, as spokesmen of the probation officers, to approach the Home Office whenever they think it desirable in the interests of the probation service or the interests of their members to do so, and access to the Department is open to them whenever they wish to make representations or inquiries, whether formally or informally, whether verbally or by correspondence."

A resolution was submitted at that time by the association. With regard to that resolution the letter reads:

"As regards the terms of the Resolution adopted by the National Executive Committee, the Association will no doubt recognize"—

and I suppose this is the point which will be made by my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State, if he is not prepared to concede my request—

"that it would not be consistent with the constitutional position of the Home Secretary, as a Minister of the Crown who is answerable to Parliament, to pledge himself never"—

and I emphasise the word "never" because I ask him to say on this occasion that he should concede the point—

"to bring before Parliament the proposals affecting the work or conditions of service of probation officers, unless there has been prior consultation with the Association: but he fully recognises the standing of the Association as a body representing the probation officers, their interest in such matters and the advantages of such consultations, and it will be the normal practice of the Department to consider with the Association any administrative or legislative proposals affecting probation officers or their duties (as, for example, has been done recently in connection with the proposed revision of the superannuation provisions and the probation rules).

"The Secretary of State wishes me to add an expression of his appreciation of the public services which probation officers are rendering, and of the good work they have done in the war under adverse conditions which often entailed heavy strain and stress. With the passing of war conditions, it will be possible to strengthen and expand the service, and in connection with future development there will be increased opportunity and need for the help of the Association."

Whilst acknowledging that as a very charming, appreciative, and appreciated letter, at the same time, I would like to ask my hon. Friend to supplement this by accepting my Amendment. There are substantial reasons why the Association of Probation Officers should be consulted.

1.45 p.m.

I would like to give one example of these for the consideration of the Committee. The present full-time officers are concerned as to how their superannuation position will be affected by the proposed transfer. Under the present probation officers superannuation fund, men officers receive a pension of £6a year for each year of contributory service, and women £4.They are anxious that they shall not suffer financially for past years of service by the terms of the transfer. Part-time officers, many of whom get very small salaries, are anxious to be provided for in some way, by gratuity or otherwise. At present, there is no superannuation provision for them.

When this Bill is brought into operation there will be a provision for consulting any association of local authorities whom it may affect. It is not a very stringent provision. The Home Secretary has certain powers which enable him, if I may say so without disrespect, to sidestep even that provision, by adopting a genial and persuasive attitude; nevertheless, there is some kind of an obligation placed upon him before an Order is placed on the Table, to consult the local authority association, whereas there is no obligation of any kind whatsoever, to consult the probation officers themselves or their organised body.

All that I am asking my right hon. Friend to do by this Amendment is to say that he will, at least, extend the courtesy' and consideration whenever any order is to be made, of requesting the view of the Association of Probation Officers of whom he has spoken so highly on previous occasions in regard to its terms. They are the people who will be most materially affected by the order. I ask my hon. Friend to accept my Amendment.

Could my hon. Friend tell me how the Association of Probation Officers compares with the Civil Service Association?

I do not know the membership of the Civil Service Association, but I do know the membership of the Association of Probation Officers. I think the membership consists of nearly all those permanent officers who are available—as I said, 87 per cent. of them.

I am sure all hon. Members are familiar with the work of probation officers, and would wish to pay tribute to the work they do with such admirable efficiency, and, to a very great extent— and I can speak from my own personal knowledge—to the great capacity, charm and perseverance which they exhibit in the execution of their duties. If, of course, it was a question of just recognising the probation officers, then there would be no trouble at all. But this Amendment is misconceived. Clause 3, where it says,

"Before making the order the Secretary of State shall cause …",

relates wholly to the question of finance, and not to questions on any other matter. The local authorities are the bodies who will have to provide the money, and it is, therefore, necessary to consult the local authorities before the scheme is drawn up. Obviously, the Association of Probation Officers would not be interested in that particular aspect of the matter.

I can assure my hon. Friend that so far as questions of superannuation are concerned, the officers are in constant touch with the Home Office; and I think the probation officers themselves would tell my hon. Friend that on these matters they are, and will continue to be, in touch with the Home Office, in dealing with any matter pertaining to their own interests. So far as the Home Department is concerned, whenever the interests of the probation officers are under discussion the probation officers will be taken into consultation. This Clause, however, relates to the financial arrangements between the Home Office and the local authorities, and for that reason I ask my hon. Friend to be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.

I hope there is no misunderstanding. My hon. Friend says it is a question of financial arrangements, but there are certainly financial matters involved in this Bill on which the probation officers are entitled to be called into consultation from time to time. On the assurance of my hon. Friend that no steps in which they are personally concerned will be taken without their being first informed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 4, column 2, line 11, to leave out "or gratuities" and to insert "gratuities or compensation".

While dealing with this Amendment perhaps we could also consider the following Amendment, which embodies the same principle. These Amendments are necessary because in some local superannuation enactments the term "compensation," describing the type of allowances referred to in the Local Government Act of 1937, relates to gratuities. In one Act "compensation" is referred to, and in another Act the same thing is referred to as "gratuities." That difficulty is overcome by the insertion of the words in these Amendments.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, after "consumption" to insert, "or use."

The object of this Amendment is more or less drafting. It ensures that the words "commercial crop" would cover cereals, potatoes, or other crops grown on the farm and ultimately used for sowing in a subsequent year on that farm.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is, I think—and I hope the House will think—a short, well-drafted and non-controversial Measure; and I hope it may have a short well-conducted and non-controversial passage through the House. The need for the Bill arises from the doubt which has been cast on the legal validity of 92 marriages of members of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. We want to remove the doubt, to make the 92 marriages valid beyond all question, and to ensure that no such doubts can arise in the future in respect of other marriages. I must explain how the doubt arose. In 1892, Parliament passed the Foreign Marriage Act, which is the principal Act. In Section 22, which deals with marriages carried out under the authority of the commanding officer of a British army serving abroad, the exact language is as follows:

"all marriages solemnised within the British lines by any chaplain or officer or other person officiating under the orders of the commanding officer of a British army serving abroad shall be valid in law as if the same had been solemnised within the United Kingdom, with a due observance of all forms required by law."

I ask the House to note the phrases, first, that marriages have to be solemnised

"by any chaplain or officer or other person officiating under the orders of the commanding officer,"

and, secondly, that he has to be the commanding officer of "a British army serving abroad." It is out of these two phrases that the doubt has arisen The second phrase, "a British army serving abroad" should be noted It does not say "the British Army" or "part" of the British Army. In 1892, the existence of Air Forces was not foreseen, and no special provision was, therefore, made for the Royal Air Force. Thirty-three years later, in 1925, a legal opinion was given to the Government that the phrase "a British army serving abroad" could rightly be held to cover air forces serving overseas, and that marriages solemnised by persons acting under the orders of the commanding officer of such forces were valid. It was also held, in pursuance of that legal opinion, that marriages solemnised during the war by naval chaplains, in the Mediterranean commands and elsewhere, were valid, there being 75 marriages solemnised by Royal Air Force chaplains, and 17 solemnised by Naval chaplains.

A much more recent legal opinion, however, has made the Government doubtful. The doubt is raised whether the phrase "a British Army serving abroad" can really be held to cover air forces serving overseas, and whether naval chaplains can really be held to be acting under the orders of a commanding officer of a British army. So far no one knows whether the validity of any of these 92 marriages has ever been challenged; the point has certainly never been settled in the courts. Owing to the legal technicalities I have explained, the doubt exists whether these 92 marriages are really valid, and that doubt would, of course, exist about any new marriages.

In Clause 1 (1) we have cleared up the matter, and have removed the doubt about the past and the future. That is the main purpose of the Bill, which, I think, will commend itself to the general support of the House. Clause 1 (2) is also important. One of the parties to any one of the 92 marriages may have married again during the lifetime of the other party. We have no information that any such second marriage has taken place, but it is possible that it has taken place without being brought to the attention of the authorities. If such a second marriage has taken place, and if the first marriage were decided by the courts to be invalid, then the second marriage would not be bigamous, and the party who contracted it must be protected against the charge of bigamy arising retrospectively under this Bill. That is done by Clause I (2).

I ask the House to note that the Subsection makes no change whatever in the existing law. If there have been two marriages, it makes no choice between the two. It does not favour the first against the second, or the second against the first, but leaves the courts to decide, if the case should ever arise, whether such a marriage would be valid or not. If the court should decide that the first marriage was valid, then the second marriage would, of course, be bigamous, and the man or woman concerned would have to take the consequences. If the first marriage is decided by the court to be invalid, the second marriage will not be bigamous. It was thought by the Government to be right to uphold the principle that we must not take away retrospectively a good defence in law. The House will note that this Subsection restricts this safeguard to those who have contracted the second marriage before 24th April this year—that is to say, the day the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. If we had not done that, as Lord Simon pointed out in another place, we should have encouraged people to make a second marriage in the interval between the introduction of the Bill and its final passing into law, in the hope that the first marriage might be declared by the courts to be invalid.

As we have had to amend the 1892 Act, we have taken the opportunity to clarify and re-enact Section 22, which was not wholly satisfactory, and to make some other minor useful improvements. Clause 2 contains the new redrafted Section 22. It provides that marriages solemnised under the amending Act shall only be valid if one of the parties is a member of the Armed Forces serving in the territory concerned, or is a person employed in such territory in a prescribed capacity— the capacity prescribed in an Order in Council. It is intended to prescribe that these facilities for marriage shall be made available to members of the women's forces and to members of the Control Commission in Germany and Austria, but not to anyone else. That is the present intention. Under Subsection (2), foreign territory is defined as all British territories and protectorates, unless there is a strong reason to the contrary, meaning that where ample local facilities for marriage exist they should be used, which has the further advantage that marriage according to the lex lociis recognised not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere.

Clause 3 is a consequence of the Statute of Westminster, 1926. It simply ordains that the Bill does not legislate for forces of the Dominions, but enables His Majesty to recognise any similar provisions made by a Dominion Parliament. Clause 4 repeals Section 12 of the principal Act. That Section provided for marriages on His Majesty's ships at foreign stations. Clause 22, as we have redrafted it, provides full and adequate facilities for members of the Navy. Therefore, we delete the original Section 12 from the Act. Section 5 deals with the marriage of minors. In the United Kingdom, the Registrar-General, or the Superintendent Registrar, has power to dispense with the consent of parents or guardians where they are not available. The Bill lists absence, inaccessibility, or disability as causes which would make parents or guardians not available. The Bill provides for the Registrar-General or the Secretary of State, a similar power in respect of marriages of people who have not come of age which are solemnised, under this Bill, in territory abroad. There are other minor matters in the Measure, which can, perhaps, be dealt with in Committee. I hope I have said enough on this occasion to show that this Bill is simple, straightforward, non-controversial—I hope—and necessary.

So far, my right hon. Friend has discussed only the legality of these marriages. This seems to me to be a somewhat intricate Bill, involving a great many legal problems. I am more concerned about the legitimacy of any children of these marriages. What happens in the case of a child of a marriage which, presumably, is regarded as valid, and then is found subsequently to be bigamous?

I do not claim to be an authority on these matters, and I will take advice, but I should have thought that if a marriage was declared bigamous any children of that marriage would be illegitimate. I hope, however, that no such thing will ever happen.

In view of the slight hiatus in our proceedings before the Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill, I think we are for- tunate that we have had such a clear exposition of it from the right hon. Gentleman, and that he should have been the Minister in charge, for he is, I think, the only Minister who sits on the Front Bench who, when summoned from the further end of the corridor, could have covered the distance in record time, and have arrived with sufficient breath left in his body to be able to explain a Measure of this complexity to the House.

As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this is a good Measure. It has two main purposes. They are, first, to validate certain marriages which took place within the lines on active service, about whose validity doubts have arisen, and, second, to bring into alignment with modern conditions the provisions of Section 22 of the 1892 Act, which deals with foriegn marriages contracted overseas by members of His Majesty's Forces. I would say this about the removal of doubt as to the validity of certain marriages: the Home Secretary knows, or will find out if he does not know, during his term of office, that it is necessary, from time to time, to bring in Bills to ensure the validity of marriages about which doubts have arisen on account of either the possibility of lack of authority on the part of the priest who has performed them, or as to the nature of the buildings in which the marriages have taken place.

There was such a Bill about a month ago.

Such Bills are brought forward from time to time, and, of course, they are necessary, because it is disturbing to married people who are on the eve of celebrating their golden wedding to ascertain that, possibly, they have been living in sin for half a century. It is, therefore, a human thing, where doubts of this kind arise, to pass an Act of Parliament which validates the marriage with retrospective effect. There are 92 marriages about whose validity doubts have arisen, and it is right and proper that those doubts should be removed. At the same time, however, careful safeguards should be provided to ensure that this Bill does not retrospectively create the offence of bigamy. That is to say, if any of the people who have contracted a marriage, as to whose validity there is doubt, subsequently contract a valid marriage, it would be unfortunate if we were retrospectively to make them guilty of an offence of bigamy.

It they are guilty of bigamy, then any children of their marriage will be illegitimate.

It is necessary, in introducing a Bill of this character, to ensure that by giving notice of a change in the law we do not enable persons who have contracted marriages, about whose validity there is some doubt, to cast off the women they have married and contract a new marriage when the Bill is passing through Parliament. This Measure received careful scrutiny in another place, and was amended, to some extent, as a result of the advice given by some of the highest legal luminaries in the land. We on these benches think that in the form which it comes before us today this is a good Bill, and ought to have the general support of all Members.

I wish to support the Bill, because as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has just said, its purposes are highly commendable. But there is something which needs looking into in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), and I hope that before the Bill reaches the Statute Book this will be considered. It appears from the first Clause that a peculiar ambiguity may arise. What that Clause purports to do is to make valid marriages, which, hitherto, may not have been valid. The wording of the Clause rather implies that some were in fact invalid. If that is so, it means that any children who were the issue of the first so-called marriage would be placed in an extremely difficult position as, indeed, would the spouse of the first so-called marriage. There is also the question of inheritance to be considered, and a child's mental anxieties, which may be seriously aroused. I hope that suitable words will be found whereby this peculiar anomaly will be put right.

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that where the marriage is subsequently validated by Act of Parliament children of the marriage are not automatically legitimated unless there is a specific provision in the Bill?

I rather gather that if the wording of the Clause stands as it is, it would mean that we are making valid marriages which before were definitely invalid.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me to which words he is referring?

I am referring to Subsection (2):

"Where a marriage purporting to have been solemnized under the said Section 22 would, but for this Section, have been invalid—"

The obvious inference is that if this Bill had not been introduced these marriages would, but for this Subsection, have been invalid. If the word in the Subsection had read might," r if some word of that nature had been introduced —I am, of course, thinking aloud on this —it might clear up the difficulty. What I am anxious about is that there should not be any reflection cast on, or any difficulty put in the way of, children or wives who thought they were legitimate children or legitimate wives respectively before the introduction of the Bill. For that would mean that the Bill would defeat its own ends. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend would not want any inference of that nature to be drawn as the consequence of a Bill introduced for such a worthy purpose as he has in mind. This is an important point, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider it. It might be held that this means a new situation entirely in which there are two legal marriages. On the one hand, we want, to protect a person against a charge of bigamy who may at present be in a position to prove that because the provisions of the 1892 Act did not cover the first so-called marriage it was not really a marriage; and on the other hand, we want to protect those people who thought they were properly married and whom we now want to consider as having been properly married against any difficulty that may arise. I put this forward in a constructive sense, because I have no desire to criticise, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this into consideration.

If I may be allowed to reply to the point raised, the first consideration is whether in any actual case there have been two marriages. So far as we know, in all the 92 pairs of people who have contracted marriages under the 1892 Act, none in fact has made a second marriage. We hope, therefore, that this is theoretical.

We must, of course, provide for the exceptional cases.

It is for the exceptional case that the Bill is brought in and hon. Members are entirely right in raising these points. Clause 1 (2) is not intended in any way to imply that either marriage is invalid. I am advised that it might be better to use the word "if" instead of "where," and I will consider that, and if it is right to bring it in, I will do so on the Committee stage. It is the intention of this Subsection to leave it to the courts to decide. If, in fact, there had been two marriages, can the courts hold that both are valid? I can conceive of cases in which it might be natural justice to say that both marriages were valid, but I am afraid that would be repugnant to the principles of the law, which admit only one valid marriage. In that case they would have to decide that one of the marriages was bigamous. I am advised as a necessary consequence of that the children of the marriage declared to be bigamous would, in fact, be illegitimate. That would be a most regrettable circumstance, and I hope that it will never arise, but I gather that that would, in fact. be the position.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will look at this matter again. It is tremendously important that, when the first marriage continues for a certain number of years, the child of that marriage should be regarded as the heir from the point of view of inheritance, because if the marriage is declared by the court to be bigamous, the child is made illegitimate and disinherited, and a subsequent child may get all the inheritance. It is an important point, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has promised to consider it. I am not very much concerned about the legality of the marriage itself, because the partners can take care of themselves, but I am concerned to see that the children of the marriage are protected from the stigma of illegitimacy and loss of inheritance.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

2.27 p.m.

This Bill provides for the transfer to the Crown of the freehold interest in Apsley House, commonly known as "No. I, London," in Piccadilly, and its site, with the garden and forecourt, together with certain valuable objects associated with the great Duke of Wellington, so that a Wellington Museum can be set up there. During his lifetime, Parliament voted to certain trustees substantial sums of money for the purpose of purchasing estates for the benefit of the Duke and his successors. Apsley House was one of these, and was purchased in 1830 from money voted to the trustees under the Wellington Estates Acts. These Acts created a statutory settlement in relation to the estates so purchased and provided also that, as long as the title of the Duke of Wellington should endure, neither the first Duke nor any of his successors should bar the statutory entail. It is, therefore necessary that legislation should be passed before the offer that has been made by the present Duke can be accepted.

This really very great offer covers not only Apsley House itself, which by reason of its intrinsic and architectural merits and history is a valuable acquisition to the nation, but covers also many valuable pictures, pieces of plate and other objects, some of which were given to the first Duke by his great contemporaries and others which are the personal property of the present Duke of Wellington. These treasures will be shown in the museum for which provision is made in this Bill. Under the powers that were conferred by one of the Estate Acts, the Duke in 1841, assigned many of these objects that will figure in the Museum to the trustees as heirlooms, so that no person to whom they should descend could be made capable of alienating them or disposing of them. Therefore, it is necessary in this Bill to make provision to free from these restrictions such of the articles now offered as were originally included in the great Duke's assignment.

The part of Apsley House which is to be used as a museum, as provided in the Bill, may also be used for purposes of Government hospitality and any similar use, subject, of course, to the Duke's consent. The Dukes of Wellington will maintain a right to use a portion of the house as a private residence, together with the garden, free of rent and free of rates. The Minister of Works for the time being will be responsible for maintaining the structure of the whole of Apsley House, while the Duke himself will be responsible for the ordinary tenant's liabilities in respect of the part of the house that he will occupy. The museum part will be run by the Victoria and Albert Museum, under the supervision of the Minister of Education. Complete possession of Apsley House, together with its site, will revert to the Minister of Works if the Dukedom of Wellington becomes extinct, or if the building is so very damaged that its historic connection with the Duke of Wellington can no longer be maintained. Such a thing might result from a very serious fire. In this event, provided that the Duke is not himself responsible for the damage by negligence of otherwise, the Duke will be compensated for his loss of rights under the Bill.

It has been very difficult for us—pretty well impossible—to arrive at any very precise statement of the value of this remarkable gift. With the existing restrictions that there are upon its disposal, the house, with the garden, is worth roughly about £50,000, but freed of those restrictions the value would probably be £400,000. The value of the pictures and the other treasures would be at least another £400,000. It is estimated that to repair the house and adapt it for the museum and other purposes for which it may be used will cost us something like £50,000 and that, thereafter, the annual maintenance will be about £2,200. The running of the museum will probably involve about £5,000 annually.

I have endeavoured to explain very briefly the provisions embodied in this Bill. Hon. Members will. I am sure, realise that the real motive of the Measure is to give effect to the very magnanimous gesture of the present Duke of Wellington in offering Apsley House and the possessions I have described, and I think the House will agree with me that it would be fitting on this occasion that I should pay tribute on behalf of the Government —as has already been done so well in another place—to the great public spirit displayed by the Duke in allowing the nation to acquire these invaluable objects which I have enumerated. I am sure that this Bill, which will secure to posterity such historical and cultural benefits as those I have mentioned, will commend itself to the unanimous support of this House.

We think this Bill marks a very wise acceptance by His Majesty's Government of a very generous and public-spirited offer by the present Duke of Wellington. As the right hon. Gentleman explained, the value of what will pass to the nation cannot be assessed accurately in terms of money, but if an attempt were made to do so the figure placed upon them would be very high. The people who will really gain by this arrangement will be the British public and our visitors from overseas, who will in this way obtain the privilege of seeing many things associated with the Iron Duke to which they could otherwise never have access. His Majesty's Government will obtain a fine house in which they will be able to entertain in a more fitting way than they have sometimes done in the past. We commend this Bill to the House, and give it our support.

This Bill asks us to do two things, one is to take over a piece of property, and the second is to take it over for a particular purpose. I am in favour of taking over the property and I am in favour of the purpose for which we are taking it over—the creation of a museum connected with the Duke of Wellington. I hope that in running it we shall have regard not only to the profound military genius and services of the Duke of Wellington, but also to the wisdom of many of the things he said, which have a significance for today. For example, it may be of some significance to Governments that they should recollect his observation on the quality of some of his recruits, when he asked whether the damned cowards expected to live for ever. That is a remark which the Government might well take to themselves. There was another occasion when, looking at another batch of recruits, he expressed sentiments which might have been inspired by a cursory inspection of the Minister of Mines, the Attorney-General, and some Members of the House of Lords. He said, "I do not know what effect these fellows will have on the enemy, but by God, they frighten me."I think those observations of the Duke of Wellington, together with his great services to Britain, ought to be commended. I bless the Bill as one means of doing this.

I welcome the Bill. I believe that this is a gift by the Duke of Wellington which will give great pleasure and afford much information to the people of this country. The very valuable site alone makes this gift one which we should receive with gratitude. There are one or two points I should like to mention, and the first is that at Woolwich in the Rotunda there are a number of Wellington relics. As hon. Members may know the Rotunda tent was originally erected by the Prince Regent in the gardens of Carlton House after the first fall of Napoleon—when the latter was sent to Elba—for the welcoming of and hospitality to the persons who were arriving here for the peace conference— one of the many peace conferences which have been held, this one unfortunately with as little effect as many others. After the conference was over, the Prince Regent presented the silken tent in which his guests were entertained to the Royal Artillery at Woolwich, and that tent is still there to this day, bricked over. In it there are a number of Wellingtonian relics, including the famous umbrella which accompanied him right through the Peninsular campaign, and I am wondering whether the Minister of Works could arrange with the Royal Artillery Institution for the collection of these relics from the Rotunda. They are rarely seen by anybody at Woolwich, as they are tucked away in a corner which is not really known to the public nowadays. I hope they can be made available to add to those at Apsley House and so to augment this handsome gift by the Duke of Wellington.

The second point is one of criticism, not of the gift but of the Bill. It is one of those instances which we see—too often, in my opinion—of bad draftsmanship, where more is put into the Bill than need be put in. If the Minister will turn to Clause 4 (2), he will see that this Clause reads as follows:

"Save as aforesaid, nothing in this Act shall be construed as exempting the Duke of Wellington for the time being from any taxes or imposts of any nature in law falling to be paid by reason of any occupation by him of any portions of Apsley House other than those-described in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act, or of the garden of Apsley House."

According to the Schedule, and from what the Minister has said—and I listened carefully to him—nothing in Part I of the Schedule falls as a burden on the Duke at all. If that is so, why on earth put in those words which are confusing, which caused me some little trouble in looking up, and will cause the same trouble to other simple souls like myself who do likewise. It is time we insisted on the Government, and on the draftsmen, trying to achieve simplified Bills instead of putting in every possible form of words they can think of to complicate them. I cannot see that these words add anything at all to the effect of the Measure and will only lead to confusion. With that one criticism, I heartily welcome this Bill.

I think the House will agree with me—and I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food will agree with me when she arrives—that the question of the price of food at the present time must cause some concern. On the one hand, we have the undoubted fact that the housewife is harassed and handicapped in her very laudable desire to implement her rationed food by the high prices of many unrationed foods and, on the other hand, we have very justifiable complaints from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the heavy burden which is falling on the taxpayer in the form of subsidies to keep down prices of many foodstuffs on the rationed list. Therefore, I think it will be agreed that any action, or inaction, on the part of the Government which is tending to keep those prices up —whether that is a burden which falls directly on the housewife or on the taxpayer through the operation of the subsidies—must be a matter of considerable concern. I want to indicate to the House that in a number of foodstuffs such a circumstance is occurring.

I am glad I put in that introductory paragraph because I see that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has just arrived, and she will be able to hear the gravamen or the main part of what I want to say. There are three foodstuffs in particular to whose distribution I want to call the attention of the House. The first is an unrationed foodstuff where the excessive distribution costs fall directly on the housewife, namely, tomatoes. The other two are foodstuffs which are subsidised, where therefore the housewife does not feel directly the burden, but where there is nevertheless a burden because it has to be borne by the Exchequer in the subsidies. Those two are flour and meat.

First, I will deal with tomatoes. I am sorry if I weary the House by giving some of the details of the distributive mechanism which operates in the case of tomatoes, but it is necessary that one should be clear as to what has happened in the present tomato distribution scheme. In normal times there were two processes which might be distinguished of getting tomatoes into the shops either from the importer, who brought in the imported tomatoes from overseas, or from the grower, who grew them in this country. The tomatoes have to be got from the importer or grower to the market and they have to be sold in the market to the retailer. One cannot say that in normal times there were two separate sets of people who carried out these operations. Sometimes an importer would convey the fruit himself from the docks to the market, or the grower would take them to the market and might even sell them there. On the other hand, sometimes the importer or the grower did not do that. The person who sold them in the market, that is, the wholesaler, also collected them at the dockside or direct from the grower.

In 1941 the Ministry of Food decided to rationalise this process. They quite rightly set up a number of centralised associations to carry out the operations so that they were not left to the haggling of the market between the separate individuals in each category in the process of distribution. In order to set up this distribution, they made by what was purely a logical abstraction a distinction between different stages in the distributive process. They said, on the one hand, that the process of conveying the tomatoes to the market from the dockside where the importer brings them into the country, or from the garden where the home grower grows them, is one process of distribution called, in the case of importing, the function of first-hand salesmen, and, for home-grown tomatoes, that of primary wholesaler. Then, they said, there is a quite separate function of selling them in the market which is clearly the function of the wholesaler.

They set up distributive agencies to embrace each of these functions. They set up an association of first-hand salesmen, an association of primary wholesalers, and an association of secondary wholesalers. When imported from abroad, tomatoes are sold, not to any individual, but to an association of firsthand salesmen. The individual, whether he be an importer who also carries out this duty of first-hand salesman, or a wholesaler who has bought direct from the docks, is entitled by reason of the fact that before 1941 he carried out that task, to carry out the onerous task of standing at the dockside—or sending one of his servants to do so—pointing out a particular consignment of tomatoes and saying, "Those are mine"; and handing them over to the agent of the association. He is thereby said to have carried out a stage in distribution, and he receives a quite reasonable reward merely by reason of the fact that he happens to be a member of this association of first-hand salesmen, even though he might also be an importer, a wholesaler and a retailer, and even though, as I have said, he carries out no function other than merely to point out to the agent of the association which is his consignment of tomatoes. For that he is entitled to draw a commission of is. 6d. per 26 1b.

The tomatoes then go on to the wholesaler proper who again draws his commission of 1s. 9d. for 26 lb. One might imagine that out of that they had to pay carriage, but in addition there are laid down in the Food (Tomatoes) Order, 1947, separate excess charges which may be added for carriage. Before the war the position was that either the importer wholesaled the goods himself or the wholesaler bought from the importer, and between them they probably netted 6d. for those 26 lb. Now we have two people who draw a commission of 1s. 6d. and 1s. 9d. respectively for doing exactly the same job, and they are two people only in the sense that they are members of two separate associations. I think my hon. Friend will agree that in the vast majority of cases those two people drawing separate commissions for what are theoretically two separate jobs, are really one and the same person who has merely been split by the Ministry by a logical abstraction for the purpose of paying him these charges.

As far as concerns imported tomatoes I think it will be agreed that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and we get the same thing with regard to homegrown tomatoes. Here, again, we have two separate types of wholesaler distinguished as I have explained. There are, of course, two processes in the sense that the tomatoes have to be conveyed from the grower to the market and then sold in the markets to the retailers. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that in normal times when normal methods were functioning there were, in fact, two separate operations carried out by two separate people. In some cases the grower conveyed them to the market himself and in others the wholesaler in the market fetched them from the grower. Now the thing has been formalised and has been divided by this same logical abstraction. Two separate associations have been created—the primary and the secondary wholesalers' distributive associations—and the Order lays it down that a separate commission may be charged for sales through each of these agencies. They may charge 1s. 1d. in the case of primary wholesalers and 1s. 2d. in the case of the secondary wholesaler.

Let us examine what relation these commission charges actually bear to the real cost of distribution. We know that in the case of home-grown tomatoes the real task of distribution is not done by these people at all, but by people who have depots in the markets where they actually carry out the sale to the retailers. They, of course, perform a real function and incur administrative costs in having to keep their stands in the market. But the payment for this is 2d. per 12 lb. as against the commission given to the primary wholesaler and the 1s. 3d. to the secondary wholesaler. We can see, therefore, that it is much more profitable not to sell tomatoes than to sell them.

To return for a moment to imported tomatoes, in case my hon. Friend should say, "That is all theoretically possible, but it does not, in fact, happen and we do not in fact get this excessive burden on the price of tomatoes," I want to draw her attention to the fact that the operation of this system was brought out very sharply in a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) only this week. He drew attention to the fact—which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food admitted— that people importing tomatoes from Holland were paying the Dutch growers prices higher than those which they themselves were allowed to be paid when the tomatoes reached this country.

I believe that it is true to say that there is no allegation that when the tomatoes reach this country the Order is being evaded or that the importers are in fact being paid more than they should receive. The fact remains, therefore, that these importers are quite willing to pay more for the tomatoes in Holland than they are able to obtain here. We are all aware that these people are not importing tomatoes because they like their nice red colour. Obviously, they make money somewhere, and it is quite apparent that these same importers are also first-hand salesmen and, perhaps, in other cases, wholesalers, and that, therefore, for doing no work in those capacities they are drawing such handsome dividends that for the purpose of getting the tomatoes over here they are able to pay a price in Holland which is larger than that which they will receive as importers when the tomatoes reach this country. I think that that reveals an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs.

I turn now to the case of flour. At the beginning of the war, the Ministry of Food took over the flour milling industry and, as an act of benevolence, pensioned it off. The industry has remained substantially pensioned to this day, and when I say "substantially pensioned" I mean substantially. Attention was first drawn to this by the Committee on Public Accounts for the year 1942–43, examining the accounts for that year. They expressed some surprise at the arrangement arrived at, and still more surprise at the fact that the arrangement was still continuing. The general scheme is that the mills are taken over by the Ministry and the costs of flour milling are borne by the Ministry. The flour millers are not in any sense risking their money in running these mills, as all the legitimate expenses of running the mills are borne by the Ministry. But a payment still continues to be made to the millers on the basis of paying to them the prewar rate of profit on every sack. The Minister of Food at the time was the noble Lord who is being recommended by the Housewives League and others as the person who should feed us again. He obviously did not intend to pamper the flour millers, but made the right and proper stipulation that the profits paid to them should not exceed the profits paid to them before the war. Obviously it was right that they should not get more profit for not milling flour than for milling flour, and that they should get only the same amount of profit as before the war. I gather that the scheme has been amended, and in view of the fact that as much or more flour is being milled as before the war, they are now allowed more profit than before the war.

The Committee of 1942–43 expressed surprise that this arrangement was continuing in view of the fact that at that time the Minister of Food had no idea of what profit they were paying to the flour millers. The following year the matter appears to, have been allowed to drop, but in 1944–45 the Committee raised the matter again, and at that time the Ministry of Food had some information. The information showed that they were, in fact, paying these millers, as a result of a wartime scheme, for the whole period of six years for which the scheme had been operated, at the rate of 13 per cent. of their capital. That was the rate of profit they were being paid without risking anything in the process of milling flour.

Finally, I wish to deal with meat. The Ministry of Food decided, very properly, to rationalise the whole process of meat distribution. They decided that it could not be left to every individual farmer, slaughterer and butcher to be responsible for this very vital item in the nation's diet, and that, therefore, all the meat should be brought under the ownership of the Ministry of Food. It was either imported on account of the Ministry, or slaughtered in slaughterhouses rented to the Ministry. In the wholesale stage it was entrusted to a public body, the Wholesale Meat Suppliers' Association, and it was not left to the individual wholesaler to be responsible for conveying the meat to the retailers. The Wholesale Meat Suppliers' Association organised the markets through which meat was conveyed, and in turn sold the meat to other corporate bodies, the retail buying groups of 50 or 100 retailers. The individual wholesaler has been cut out, and the real work is done by the Association. But many of the wholesalers work in the Ministry's slaughterhouses, or operate on the dock-sides as buyers for the Ministry, organising the purchase of the meat from the importers, and organising the introduction of meat into this country. For those operations they receive salaries.

Again, many people are employed by the Wholesale Meat Suppliers' Association in the depots and are performing useful functions. Many of them are people who were formerly wholesalers and took part in the wholesale side of the meat trade. No one would criticise them for getting proper remuneration for the work they are actually doing, but it is quite clear that the money which is being paid for this process of wholesaling is something far more than is required for remunerating these people who today carry out the functions of wholesaling. The Wholesale Supply Association is paid much more than covers all their operating costs, and then there is enough to pay to each wholesaler who was wholesaling in 1938 a percentage—I think 1f¾per cent.—on each man's turnover in 1938. If a wholesaler had a turnover of £50,000 a year, which was by no means unusual, he can look forward, without doing any work for it or taking any active part in the business of meat distribution, to £1,000 a year merely from the fact that in the year 1938 he was a meat wholesaler who had a certain turnover.

It may be put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in her reply that it is necessary to compensate these people in the case of meat and tomato schemes by reason of the fact that they have lost their businesses. What sort of compensation is this? We are not in this instance nationalising an industry and taking over large capital equipment. We are merely taking over goodwill, and I think it is generally recognised in any business of this kind that in purchasing the goodwill three to five years' purchase would be quite adequate compensation. There is, too, the possibility that this scheme might end at any time and they would then still have their businesses. The tomato scheme began operating in 1941, so it is now in its eighth year, while the meat scheme has been going on for longer, and these people have been getting this considerable percentage, which is quite enough to cover a very reasonable return to them if they had still been operating their businesses. At any time if the Ministry chose to terminate the scheme they would still have their businesses which would be returned to them.

I submit that these three instances constitute a real and unnecessary burden either directly on the housewives of this country or on the taxpayers through the medium of the subsidy which has to be paid by the Exchequer. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should look into this matter very closely and see if she cannot evolve a much more workmanlike arrangement. I hope in considering these representations the Minister of Food will not draw the conclusion from the present operation of this scheme that it should be dropped and we should go back to the chaotic, laissez fairesystem of distribution that applied before the war. I believe that would be disastrous, particularly in the present state of our food supplies, and that it would be inviting a considerable rise in costs. The thing to do is to organise a proper, rationalised distribution system and see that such payments as are made to the distributors are for the functions that are actually carried out.

This places a burden on the housewives. I do not know whether I shall be backed up by the British Housewives League in the representations I am making. I rather doubt it. Abuses of this type were arranged before this Government came into office, when, in the words of the slogan of the Housewives' League, we had "Winston to lead us; Woolton to feed us." Obviously it is on the party responsible for arranging them that the greatest responsibility rests. The only responsibility that rests on my right hon. Friend, who we all recognise has had many other preoccupations, is that he has allowed them to continue for so long. I hope that as a result of the representations that I am making, and those which others will make, he will now decide that the time has come to put a stop to these abuses which have already confirmed far too long.

I welcome the opportunity of discussing this matter in the House, and I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) upon the very pertinent points which he has raised. If he had the necessary experience in the distributive trades I do not think he would have attempted to make certain of his points. I have been engaged in the distributive trades for almost 25 years. I have been connected with the organising of people in the tomato growing industry, in the distribution of meat to the slaughter houses, and with flour mills, in addition to many other sections of the trade. One of the first things that strikes any thoughtful person connected with the distributive trades is that when people talk of the private enterprise we have in this country, they should realise that before the war it was a case of private enterprise run riot.

The best example that I can give exists at the moment in connection with the dis- tribution of fish catches. At a time when the nation is most concerned about saving food of every description, we are faced with the fact that one section of the population can say, "Because the marketing operations in regard to the commodity which we supply in the nature of food for the people, and the methods of distribution operate against us, we refuse to go out to get the necessary fish for the people." If the miners were to say that unless they got the conditions they desire they do not intend to get coal, everybody would raise a howl about their lack of patriotic duty. But if the fishermen say that they do not intend to go out to catch fish and that if they catch it and do not get the necessary price to cover the costs which they consider fair, they intend to dump it back in the sea, very rarely do we hear the same howl of indignation which we hear in the other case.

On the question of meat supply, I think that Lord Woolton tackled a most difficult problem when the war took place. He tackled it quite rightly in the only way in which it could have been dealt with at that time. In the operation of the meat markets throughout the country, with the exception of Smithfield, it was found that in local country towns there would be a market to which the farmer brought his cattle and where the local butchers and the buyers from the large butchery establishments gathered together and assessed the price of each animal separately. Sometimes they bought in large numbers and sometimes in small numbers. The system was that of open auction bidding. Then the animals were taken to the slaughterhouse, and it is there that the ordinary worker played an important part. He had rented a stall in the abattoir and he worked by contract. He was not an ordinary worker. Sometimes he was a small employer with three killers. He took a contract to kill so many head of cattle, sheep and so on, at the trade price, and, right from the moment when the enterprising drover went to the farmer to buy outside the market, or the farmer brought the cattle and sheep into the market, we had absolute chaos, competition and unnecessary expense of all kinds which was added to the cost, with the result that meat during that period was very much dearer than it ever should have been had the whole system of distribution been properly organised.

When the war was on something had to be done, and Lord Woolton had to face all these conflicting interests, from the drover to the slaughterman, the wholesaler and the retailer, and try to reconcile them What did he do? He formed the Meat Suppliers' Association, and he consulted with them and produced a scheme which has been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley. People on the other side, who were taking a great part in the negotiations for bringing all this about, have never raised the matter either in this House or with the Ministry, for the very simple reason that, as we recognise, this scheme requires a certain amount of time until the desires that were felt in the period prior to the war have died down. Suppose the Minister of Food were now to go to the Meat Trades Association and say, "We are going to discontinue the operation of the present scheme." Obviously, he would get a demand to go back to the status quo,and what would be the result? He would throw the whole meat situation into a kind of scramble and black market, and he would require subsidies to keep down the price. The meat would only go to the big associations, representing several hundreds of shops and with big interests in the market and in the abattoirs, who would be able to get preferential treatment over the single butcher in a village or small town. We cannot go back to that at all.

Is my hon. Friend saying that, because we cannot go back to that—and I did not suggest that we could—we should go on paying people for doing no work?

No, I am not suggesting anything of the kind. What I am suggesting is this. We cannot go to the meat trade and say that we are going to discontinue the present scheme and allow them to return to the status quo, and, at the same time, allow the fish trade to exploit everybody and everything as they like. That would be completely illogical. If we are to have a scheme of food distribution in the country we must have a comprehensive scheme. I suggest to the Minister that, along with a study of' some of the present growing evils and some other things likely to become evils, he would be well advised to set up some kind of committee to inquire into the whole question of the distribution of food to see if some scheme can be brought about for obtaining the food and distributing it, to the satisfaction, not only of the people engaged in food distribution, but also of those who have sunk a fair amount of capital in the business.

There are some people who deplore the growing development of large multiple firms and of the Co-operative movement, with the elimination of the very small man. The multiple firm or the large co-operative society engaged in food distribution is a far more economical proposition from the national point of view than hundreds of little men. It is no use arguing that point. It may be very unpopular to say it, but it is true. The more little people we have, the more is the cost of production and distribution, and that has been the case throughout the last 40 years. Therefore, when the Minister considers the three points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley, I hope he will also investigate the fish position. If there is one matter to which he should give his attention more than any other, it is the question of fish. Somebody—I think it was my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health—said that this was an island made of coal, surrounded by a sea of fish. That may be true, but immediately following the occasion when the Minister said that, we had the anomalous position of fish being imported from other countries. This ought to be one of the greatest fish exporting countries in the whole of Europe. There has never been any imagination in dealing with the landing or marketing of fish. Fleets go out, trawl as much as they can get as near as they possibly can, and have a competition as to who will get into port first to land the fish in order to capture the market. When they strike great shoals of fish, there is a glut and prices begin to fall. The machinery for receiving the fish is not able to handle it.

We have left the curing of fish largely to the little man, to people on the coast in various parts of the country who have found methods of curing fish such as the finnan haddock, "smokeys" and so on, but there has never been any experiment into the curing of fish for the purpose of preserving it and sending it abroad. At one time we used to send an enormous amount of fish to Russia and to the Baltic States. We used the old-fashioned method of cutting the fish, throwing them into barrels of brine, and sending them across in that fashion. But we cannot do that today. We must have a new method. The Ministry of Food will be well advised to set up some kind of experimental body to inquire into the processing and curing of fish. The present method of curing is turning people away from fish. We get kippers which have been only half an hour in the smoking, and sprinkled with the same stuff that ladies put on their legs when they cannot get stockings. Then this fish is put in the shop window, disguised as kipper. There is nothing tastier than a real smoked kippered herring or smoked haddock. Nothing could be finer, and it would sell anywhere. An ordinary yellow fish, which could be cooked in milk, used to be one of the most beautiful dishes obtainable. If it is now cooked in milk, the milk turns yellow because of the yellow dye.

This disorganisation, this desire to get something quickly for little or nothing, must be defeated, and the whole question must be put in proper perspective. Because of this national asset, people must not be allowed to play ducks and drakes with it just because it suits their convenience. Therefore, bearing in mind what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley, with which I largely agree, some kind of investigation into the distribution and processing of food in this country should be set up by the Minister. I have no doubt that it would be possible to regain many of the markets which we lost in the past owing to the blindness and shortsightedness of previous governments. If we had properly processed fish in this country, our trade with Eastern Europe would grow every day. Therefore, I ask the Minister to have an investigation into the whole matter.

The three instances which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) were examples of what has been a general principle in the Ministry of Food, and it arises from the fact that the Ministry of Food was started during the war as a purely temporary device. When the Ministry of Food was first formed, nobody imagined that it would continue. Therefore, during that temporary period it was felt more convenient, rather than guaranteeing or dealing with middlemen who were no longer necessary, to guarantee the prewar profits of every vested interest in the distributive trades as far as food was concerned. I do not think for a moment that in the circumstances then that was not the right thing to do; the job had to be done in a hurry, and one could not afford in wartime to have an elaborate investigation as to how everybody should be compensated. It was a simple method of getting on with the job.

However, that method becomes wholly inappropriate when the Ministry becomes a permanent Ministry. It is intolerable to be in a position where we are committed indefinitely, and for ever, to go on paying for services which are not being rendered at all—and paying an excessive figure for services, the necessity for which has been greatly reduced. That is really the general picture, of which three shining examples were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley. Once something has been started and got going, it is not easy to turn over to another system in a moment, and to wind up all these payments which have been made. It cannot be done immediately, but when the Parliamentary Secretary replies I hope she will not be on the defensive about this matter; that she will not set out to defend what is being done in the three instances given, and say that it is the right thing to be done. In the circumstances, that is a quite insupportable argument. To continue this position as a permanency at this time, after the war, is quite indefensible, and I hope she will take the opportunity to tell us what real steps the Ministry are taking to move from the Woolton position to a new position, where payment is made only at a proper rate for services which are, in fact, rendered, and that she will not try to defend the continuation of payments from which the turnover has not yet been effective.

I wish to emphasise the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) from the angle of the compensation being paid to these "displaced persons"—because they were displaced persons at the beginning of the war—who, instead of soaking the rich are soaking the poor. They are soaking the consumer in a very deliberate fashion because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has just said, Lord Woolton began it, and we are now continuing it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us: "That which Woolton began I will stop forthwith." I remember drawing attention to one anomaly in regard to flour, meat, tomatoes, and I also mentioned dried fruit. I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary that these "displaced persons," who are receiving compensation for rendering no service whatsoever in regard to dried fruit, are actually taking, in terms of profit—that is, personal gain for themselves—more money than they ever knew or could recognise as profit for themselves from their businesses before the war. One man, interned in the Isle of Man during the war, received over £3,000 a year in this racket. One could go on giving this kind of evidence, but I did not know that my hon. Friend was going to raise the matter in so much detail. There is a much bigger issue involved. It is a question of the whole method of distribution in Great Britain, in connection with which the Linlithgow Committee produced a very valuable report in 1934. It was shown that we were importing £650 million of food a year, and that it cost the consumer £1,500 million to buy it back. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) put down a Question the other day, which showed that onions were controlled at 10d. per pound, whereas the grower was receiving only ½d. per pound. This kind of thing must be stopped.

I know that hon. Members opposite regard it as an abuse. It is not an anomaly, but a curse on human society. It is disgrace to the trade, and those like my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) who have been in the distributive trade for years, are ashamed of this new code which has grown up and fastened itself on the trade since the war. A vast margin of profit is being gathered by irresponsible people, who have no responsibility whatever to society other than exploitation. We ask the Minister not only to examine the narrow point, but to come down to the House at an early date and tell us what the Government propose to do in regard to these high costs of distribution. We hope that the Government will deal with the marketing situation generally. No country in Europe could afford the margins of profits in distribution which are imposed on the people of this country. I beg the hon. Lady to be positive and definite, and to eliminate not only these displaced persons, but every form of exploitation taking place as a result of these higgledy-piggledy arrangements.

I rise to call attention to the very great problem of distribution which exists at the present moment. The position is so chaotic that it is increasing the costs to the housewives. It arises from the problem of having the same wholesaler selling commodities, like potatoes, which are in very short supply and are controlled in price, and at the same time selling green vegetables for which there is no controlled price. I spent some of the early hours this morning in Spitalfields Market, and I can assure my hon. Friend that there is complete chaos in that market at the present moment. I do not take quite the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), but the situation as regards small traders trying to get supplies is pitiful. Many of these small traders supply our poorer friends in small streets, and sell from barrows, and, hitherto, they have been able to do this without adding any undue cost to the price of their commodities. But for the people who wish to buy in the markets today the position is almost impossible.

I met a widow who had no one to support her, who had to close her shop for a day if she wished to buy any potatoes in the market. If she had added a little to the cost of the potatoes to compensate her for having to close her shop for the day, undoubtedly she would have been prosecuted. People know that there are potatoes in the market. They know that they can buy, at an exorbitant price, a sack of peas, or cabbages, but often when they take them home, after having been charged so much, they find that much of the food has to be thrown away because it is rotten. There is not the slightest doubt that in distribution today a condition of sale is imposed in our markets. I am sorry to say that when I went to the market my name spread around before I had been there long, and it was very difficult for me to get the information I required. But I am sure that if anybody goes to the market unknown he would find, after being there only half an hour, that conditions of sale are being imposed today [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the inspectors?"?] I do not want to say too much about them, because they have a very hard job to do. Tempers are very short in the markets today, and hard words are being thrown about.

As I say, people know that potatoes are available. If they can afford to wait a day they see potatoes being wheeled out in sacks, and being piled up in the lorries in the streets. The ex-Service men to whom we have granted licences to set up small businesses say, "Five or £10 means nothing to some people, but means a lot to me; I cannot afford it." That brings me to another point. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary must realise that what is going on is adding to the cost of distribution. If somebody pays something to be allowed to buy something, he makes somebody else pay for it. The money does not come out of his own pocket.

Something must be done to reorganise our markets. Everything is in a state of chaos, and things are going on that are wrong. I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that the things which are going on are a disgrace and a slur on a trade which in the past has been a very honourable trade—the distributive trade. I feel sorry for the wholesaler, who says, "The 'spivs' come in here and buy potatoes from us, and then go around the corner and sell them in the black market for five times the price." Why should not anybody who has an allocation to buy wear a button in his lapel, or have something of that kind, which would show that he has the right to buy for the distributive trade? It is not always possible, when standing in a queue, to find time to show an allocation paper, especially in such a fight as was going on on Wednesday and Thursday morning.

Is it not obvious that the system which operates between retailer and wholesaler could operate in the markets?

Obviously, that is what ought to happen. When a woman tells me that she has paid for two weeks' supply of potatoes and has not received a bag of potatoes for a fortnight, and when she knows the man from whom she has been buying and to whom she has paid the money for the two weeks supply, and he tells her over and over again that he has not any potatoes, but she knows that they are being sold to other people, what is she to do? Many people have suggested to me that as the potatoes belong to the Ministry of Food, and as they buy in bulk and distribute the potatoes, why should not they send their officials, when there is a shortage of this kind, to the markets to sell them? That would soon teach the wholesalers a good lesson.

It is important that the prices of green vegetables should be controlled, and then it would not be to anyone's advantage to push off green vegetables as a condition on which a man or woman must buy potatoes. Not only are consumers suffering because of the chaos in distribution today, but many small honest traders— ex-Service men to whom licences have been given, women who have kept shops and stalls for many years—are finding themselves almost on the verge of bankruptcy because of this. This is also a matter for a long-term policy. Some friends of mine went to the Milk Marketing Board, and when they came from that well-organised producer-consumers distribution board and saw the chaotic situation that exists in a market like Spitalfields, they thought that a proper producer-consumer board to control the whole of the commodities from production to consumption, with proper prices to those who produce and to those who consume, was the right way to deal with the commodities on which the people of this country depend for their food.

I am indebted to the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) for raising this matter. It gives me an opportunity of explaining to the House the principles which we adopt in distributing the food of the country. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that I have never defended anything which I did not believe to be perfect, and I am much too old now to learn how to do so, even though I am in the Government. I will tell hon. Members at the outset that I do not believe that our method of distribution is in every way perfect. We have used the machinery which was used in wartime. The hon.

and learned Member for Northampton said that that was all very well during the war. He was quite prepared for that machinery to be used during that period; but would he not agree that the machine was used not necessarily because there was a war, but because at that time there were shortages?

I would agree. I say that the difference is that it is now recognised that the Ministry of Food is a permanent institution. It was then treated as a purely temporary institution. What would work as a temporary measure is now inappropriate as a permanent measure

I quite accept that as far as long-term policy is concerned—that is quite another thing—but at the moment, we are using this machine for the same reason that we used it during wartime— because there are shortages. I think everyone who is associated with the trade —and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) will agree—knows that in the matter of distributing food it is necessary to carry the trade with us. Let us at least recognise that during the war distribution did not break down. We are all generous enough to pay a tribute to those men and women who were concerned in the distribution of food.

Let me now turn to what other hon. Members have said, and indeed some of them may well say that I might as well sit down after I have said this. A reorganisation of the system of distribution is about to take place in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture. It has been a question of putting first things first. My Department is geared to procure food, and we have felt that a lot of the problems mentioned this afternoon will solve themselves when there is more food to distribute. Surely, all these problems can be in great part attributed to the fact that there is a world-wide shortage of food? My Department, which consists of men who have borne a heavy burden throughout the war years, has concerned itself solely with procurement, and we have hesitated to put this extra burden on their shoulders. Every hon. Member here who is concerned with the trade, and I know that some who have spoken know their subject very well, will appreciate that the reorganisation which must eventually take place will call for detailed work. Furthermore, as the Leader of the House knows, it will call for legislation, and, therefore, we must have Parliamentary time, and we do not want to be limited. We do not want to feel that we have to produce a Bill of a limited number of Clauses; when this job is done, it has got to be done thoroughly. I can assure every hon. Member who has spoken that I personally have this matter very much at heart.

The hon. Member for Bexley described in some detail how our Ministry operated, but he was inaccurate in one or two respects in some of the things he mentioned. He mentioned the Public Accounts Committee and their criticism of the operation of the flour-milling industry. I would remind him that the Public Accounts Committee looked at the matter again in 1945 and were thoroughly satisfied. I would not like it to go out that the Public Accounts Committee are still dissatisfied with this operation of the Ministry; if he will inquire, I think he will find that I am quite right and that they have expressed satisfaction.

Does my hon. Friend mean the 1944–45 Report or the 1945–46 Report?

The 1945–46 Report. Reference was made to a Question put by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins). The hon. Member for Taunton pointed out, quite rightly, that certain importers were evading our regulations, and I think it should be made clear that our answer was that we were fully alive to the facts and intended to amend the orders. Therefore, those people who are determined to infringe the Ministry of Food orders will soon find that their wings have been clipped. I must also say this: although certain hon. Members have criticised the margins of profit which middlemen enjoy, certain of the hon. Members who have spoken have already come to me and told me that we were being too niggardly with respect to certain margins enjoyed by other middlemen. For instance, one hon. Member has told me that as far as meat is concerned we are far from generously disposed towards the trade. Dare I mention my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) who came to me last week and thought we were treating the small grocer rather meanly? I must remind hon. Members who have spoken and who are criticising certain of our margins that the same policy is pursued at arriving at all of these margins.

I would like to be perfectly clear as to what the hon. Lady means with regard to margins in the meat trade, and to which sections she has referred. If I remember correctly, the hon. Member for Bexley drew attention not to margins but to amounts that were being poured out to the wholesale section, not for services tendered, but in respect of services not rendered. I am concerned when the hon. Lady makes a statement of that sort because the retail section undoubtedly renders a service.

I am not criticising the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Royle). He has a great deal of knowledge of the meat trade and is serving the trade well in putting their point of view, which he does on many occasions to the Ministry of Food. I think he has told me on many occasions that the retailer, the butcher, should enjoy a much bigger margin. We feel indebted to every kind of distributor, but I am entitled, when hon. Members accuse the Ministry of dealing not too carefully with public money in administering margins, to say that in some cases hon. Members feel that we are niggardly rather than generous.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Epping raised the matter of vegetables. It is a difficult question, because here we have a commodity which is highly perishable, which has to be handled quickly, of which the supply is uncertain. Therefore, it is difficult to control. The recognised links in the chain of distribution are, the grower or importer, the primary wholesaler, the secondary wholesaler and the retailer. All vegetables do not necessarily pass through each stage. The number of people handling the goods depends upon circumstances, the size of the purchase and the location of the seller and buyer respectively. It is possible for a producer to bypass every middleman and sell to the retailer if, of course, the vegetables do not come within our control. At the moment we are controlling potatoes, tomatoes, onions and carrots, but any producer of any other vegetable in this country can, if he likes, bypass every link in the chain of distribution. However, the home grower prefers not to do this. Generally he prefers to go to an agent at a large market where there are greater numbers of buyers, because he gets a more stable price there. He might go to a local market, but he will find generally that a small provincial market will break easily and he cannot get what he considers is a fair price for his commodities.

An hon. Member mentioned the rôle of the secondary wholesaler. I confess that, when I first went to this Department, I used to query the role of secondary wholesaler and wondered whether he was redundant, but the secondary wholesaler serves a useful function in provincial markets. He caters for the small retailers who cannot get in touch with the primary wholesalers and, more than that, he delivers the goods to the reailer and is prepared to break up the bulk for the small man. Therefore, for the small man in the provinces, the secondary wholesaler performs a useful function.

Now let me say something about the prices of fruit and vegetables, because I feel that every housewife in the country this weekend will be thinking in terms of salads and vegetables which she can use in order to prepare a meal for the family in this hot weather. I must emphasise the fact that the price of fruit and vegetables is mainly conditioned by the supply situation although, of course, the cost of distribution is an important factor. I stress the question of supply because the failure of a crop can upset all our calculations. It seems to me that the future in the world of agriculture is almost unpredictable. Last autumn, I suppose, the farmers of this country felt that they could sit down at a table and estimate what their position would be in terms of pounds, shillings and pence during the ensuing year. The poor farmers were faced with floods, frosts and then sudden heat, and many of them, instead of being able to look forward to a profit, were faced with ruin.

The Ministry of Food very often does plan with a view to importing certain essential commodities. During the last few months we had arranged for vegetables to be imported from Europe, but on 1st May the Ministry of Agriculture quite rightly said that no leaf vegetables should come in because the Colorado beetle was infesting crops in Europe. We can therefore attribute to this series of disasters the fact that cabbage is priced highly at this time when there should be plenty available in the market. As the hon. Member for Epping knows very well, it is difficult for the workers to get a cabbage at a low price today. The reason is as I have explained. Peas were a month late, and cabbage is the only vegetable which the housewife finds she can buy.

The hon. Lady asks us to impose controls immediately, but I must remind her that if a vegetable or any other commodity is scarce and we impose controls we are not always helping the working class housewife because the limited supply goes under the counter and is reserved for the wealthy customer. We were faced with this problem last autumn when, in September, we removed the control from vegetables because we thought there was going to be a glut. I have often reminded the House that we are a consumers' Ministry and know that when there is plenty of food it is a mistake to establish a control price because often that control price, which should be the maximum, becomes in fact the minimum. Therefore, when we expected that there would be a glut we took off the control in the interest of the consumers, but unfortunately we could not anticipate the series of disasters. Vegetables were not lifted, there was an outcry for imposing control again, and we were faced with the problem whether we should let the working class housewife have at least a chance of obtaining something at any price, or whether we should impose a control again knowing that the available food would then go under the counter. That is why the control has not been imposed during the last few months.

As I have already said, it is very difficult to control this perishable commodity, and I would invite hon. Members who have spoken from this side to offer their suggestions. For instance, how would they control a lettuce—by length, breadth or by weight? Obviously, you cannot control it by length. There would be a storm in every queue in the country, and the poor harassed tradesman would not be able to get on with his job. Would you, then, control it by weight? That again is impracticable. Although most greengrocers are very honest—

—a greengrocer who perhaps is not too honest has only to dip a lettuce in a bucket of water, and it weighs twice its original weight. Then we should have more trouble if the lettuce was wet. While my hon. Friend the Member for Epping was in Spitalfields Market, I went shopping near here in order that I should know the prevailing prices within a short distance of Westminster. I was glad to find a lettuce which I thought was not too highly priced. It was enough for four people, and cost 8d., which indicates that they are gradually coming down in price. My lettuce was very wet, and I realised that if we controlled the price by weight I should, probably have had to pay a lot of money for that lettuce.

I think I have convinced the House that we are trying to do what is possible within our limited supplies. The Ministry of Food is concerned the whole time with the needs of the consumer. We recognise that the costs of distribution and administration are very closely related to prices. I am quite prepared to undertake that within a very short time the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food will convene a Committee which will go into the details of this very complex subject with a view to formulating a long-term policy.