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

I should like to remind the House of the three things which the Bill does. Firstly, it enables the Ministry to adapt the pattern of the wages councils structure to the changing pattern of industry. Secondly, it brings the old wages councils arrangements within the ambit of the wages councils structure. Thirdly, it enables us to secure greater expedition in the hearing and settlement of disputes under the wages councils structure. The only point which arose in Committee was in regard to the phrase "substantial proportions." I have written to the right hon. Gentleman opposite indicating our view that it is in common form. It is contained in Order 1305 of 1940. We think that we are not going far wrong in this respect.

We have facilitated the passage of this Bill through Parliament and we wish it well. We hope that it will play a part, if only a small part, in helping to maintain the good relations between the two sides of industry which we have in so marked a measure in the country at the present time. We wish the Bill every success.

As an ordinary Conservative back bencher, I wish to join in welcoming this Bill as one of those Measures designed to further that great structure of social reform which has largely been built up by the Conservative Party. I notice that reference is made in the Bill to a typical Conservative Act, namely, the Holidays with Pay Act. I am glad that it has not escaped the notice of the Government so far as this Bill is concerned. If, by any chance, they had brought in this Bill without covering this point, there would have been a great deal of trouble from some of us, because we stand by and look after the interests of the ordinary working people of this country far more than any hon. Member opposite, with possibly one exception. For that reason, and speaking for the West Country as a whole, regardless of party politics, I welcome the Bill and am glad that it has been brought in. I feel a little sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary, of whom we are all fond, did not expand a little more on the Third Reading of this Bill. It is a Measure which, unlike so many which we are facing today, contains a considerable amount of merit. For that reason, I join in welcoming the Bill.

I welcome the Bill on behalf of Labour back benchers. I should not have risen had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). In the late 1930's I was concerned in organising transport employees both in regard to working conditions and their weekly wages, and I know the difficulties which we encountered at that time, particularly from Tory employers. I am glad to see that this Bill removes those difficulties.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "expedient," to "that," in line 11, and to insert:

"in connection with any of the following matters."

I regret that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not present. He has been unavoidably delayed, but he will be here before long. The first of these Amendments is really only a drafting Amendment to get rid of the phrase, to which objection was taken in Committee:

"for the effecting, or for facilitating the subsequent effecting, of any of the following purposes…"

My right hon. Friend agreed to try to find some suitable alternative and we hope that the House will think he has succeeded in so doing.

This Amendment to Clause 1 and the corresponding Amendment to Clause 2 are highly gratifying to the Opposition. They get rid of one of the most horrible pieces of draftsmanship I have ever seen during the whole of my Parliamentary experience. They produce a result precisely similar to that of the Amendments which we put down on Committee stage, and which we were then told could not possibly be accepted.

I feel that some support should be given to my right hon. Friend. There is always a certain amount of suspicion with regard to any Government Amendment. These appalling words, which really are quite unnecessary and ought never to have got into the Bill, are quite rightly being eliminated at this time. I deprecate the fact that words of this kind were ever put into the Bill. They ought to have been eliminated long before now. I would ask the Patronage Secretary to make right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench appreciate that they must be more careful and observant in the drawing up of Bills, so that we are not called upon to work in this way on something which is unnecessary and ought never to have appeared in the Bill. I welcome the charming way in which the Under-Secretary put his case, and although we miss his right hon. Friend, I feel that the hon. Gentleman has fulfilled the duty no less adequately than his right hon. Friend would have done.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out from "words," to "specified," in line 8, and to insert:

"in connection with the matters."

This Amendment is, in effect, the same sort of drafting Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, at the end, to insert:

"or to both such a fine and such imprisonment."

This is also a drafting Amendment, designed to bring the wording of the penalty provision into line with the normal form.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 4, after "be," to insert:

"as appropriate to be undertaken."

This Amendment goes with the second Amendment in the same line, which is at the end to add:

"having regard to the nature of the work for which those employees are primarily employed."

The House may be aware that in Committee my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking to discuss this Clause with the National Association of Local Government Officers who were anxious lest their members might be put into a difficult and less advantageous position than other members of the civilian population. The first of the Amendments is designed to clarify what was always the intention, namely, that the phrase:

"as appropriate to be undertaken."

which appears in line 2, should specifically apply to any obligations which were to be placed upon local government employees, and not merely obligations placed upon the police and other categories mentioned in the Clause. I do not think that it makes any substantial change other than to make quite clear the intention which was already there.

The second Amendment is more substantial. Its effect is to ensure that, in imposing any duty by regulation upon local authority employees in regard to training for civil defence, regard should be had to the nature of the work for which those employees are primarily employed; that is to say, that the training which might be imposed upon these employees by regulation is intended only to relate to such extension as may be necessary in wartime of their normal local government functions. It would not relate to imposing some entirely different duty, unconnected with their peace-time duties, upon local government employees. For example, if it were a question of ambulance drivers it would be the necessary extension of their ambulance driving duties, and not other duties that would or might be imposed upon them by regulation. I hope that that will go a long way to allay any fears which local government employees or their representatives may have felt.

There is one further point which my right hon. Friend desires me to make plain. It has been one of the contentions of the National Association of Local Government Officers that it is, in any event, the wrong psychological approach to include in the Bill compulsory powers of this kind. I think that my right hon. Friend made it clear in Committee that he shared the general admiration felt for the co-operation given by local government employees during the last war in matters of Civil Defence and that no re- flection of any kind on the general willingness of those employees was intended. I would point out that under the Bill as it now stands the designated Minister is not committed to making any regulations at all. It will depend upon the way events turn out as to whether it is found necessary to make regulations.

The intention which I am asked to make clear is that, first of all, regulations will be made under Clause 2 (1) which will indicate what is the nature of the Civil Defence duties which local authorities will have to undertake. Thereafter there will be an indication given to local authorities by means of a circular that they should seek the co-operation of the appropriate classes of their employees in training for and carrying out those functions. There will be ample time after that circular has been issued to ascertain the response to that invitation, because necessarily it will be some time before full training facilities are in hand, or worked out, and while they are being worked out there should be no difficulty in discovering whether there is any need at all for regulations to be made of the kind envisaged in this Clause, which would in the last resort impose compulsion upon those categories of persons undergoing training. It may well be that no regulations will be necessary, and the Bill does not impose upon the Minister any obligation to make regulations in that event. I hope that explanation will assist in allaying any fears which local government employees and officers may have.

The House will appreciate that the Secretary of State has a responsibility under the Bill to see that this work shall be done properly in war time. It is part of his responsibility to see that necessary training is undertaken in advance. In the last resort, therefore, he must have the assurance in the Bill that he can discharge his responsibilities. Subject to that, there is no intention to use any compulsion unless it should be necessary. I hope that, with these assurances, those who previously may have felt anxiety may be prepared to rest content.

It would be ungracious of me if I did not acknowledge the manner in which the Home Secretary, the Under-Secretary and his officers have endeavoured to meet the case put against this Clause, and I express my appreciation of what has been said. I am bound to say, however, despite the charming manner of the Under-Secretary, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), that I am sure that he will be the first to admit that these Amendments do not remove the fundamental objection to this Clause. The extent to which training can be imposed on the staffs of local government authorities in connection with Civil Defence is hardly appreciated. It impinges on almost every department in the local government service—the sanitary inspector's department, the borough engineer's department, the treasurer's department, and in fact right throughout the service.

As the Minister said, it is true that power to impose compulsion is to be kept in reserve as a last resort, but the fundamental objection remains. Compulsion is being imposed on a section of the community, not Crown employees but employees of local authorities. I see in this Clause grave possibilities of conflict between the employing authorities and the Minister or the officer issuing directions about training. While one appreciates that some endeavour has been made to meet the points of view put forward, I am advised that the National Association of Local Government Officers cannot be quoted as agreeing to this Clause, however amended, because of the fundamental objections which I have indicated. I am afraid, too, that the right hon. Gentleman and his officers will have other sections of the local government staffs to deal with when the matter comes right down to the issuing of any regulations or instructions.

I think the matter that arises here is fundamental to the efficient building up of a Civil Defence service. When the question was raised in Committee, I confess I had some sympathy with the attitude of employees who felt that, under a provision of the type proposed, duties which were foreign to the real character of their individual employment might be imposed upon them. Nevertheless, I think it is a misnomer to apply the word "compulsion" to such obligations as will remain inherent in the Clause after the Amendment proposed by the Government.

What is really contemplated is an obligatory extension of the obligations of employment, which is rather different from compulsion in the sense in which we use the word in connection with conscription. Take the case of the police—a case which is covered by the Clause—about which very little was said. Every time a new penal enactment is put on the Statute Book, the responsibilities of the police are potentially extended. I do not think there is anything extraordinary or very objectionable in a provision which in effect puts on employees of local authorities duties in connection with Civil Defence which link up naturally with the duties and reponsibilities they already have.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Home Secretary has specific responsibilities for the police but that he has not those same specific responsibilities for the local government service?

I really do not see the relevance of that point. As the Bill stands, the Home Secretary is not necessarily the Minister who will be concerned in these matters. It might be the Minister of Health. Whoever the Minister is, he will be acting in discharge of his duty as a Minister and his responsibility to this House. The Home Secretary has met very fairly the representations that were made to him. I think it really would be ungracious not to recognise that, as indeed the hon. Member did. What is proposed here is really inherent in the plan for using local authorities—a very good plan, I agree—in carrying out Civil Defence duties. The local authorities must be able to rely on their employees in that connection, and I think that this provision is necessary and that the House would do well to accept it.

I have a great deal of fundamental agreement with the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) in the views he has expressed. The ordinary English Member, when examining a Bill, naturally takes the point of view that he never wishes to put in a compulsory Clause on a matter of this kind unless it cannot be avoided. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member put his point of view most clearly. We should be grossly neglecting our responsibilities as direct representatives of these sections of the community if we did not accept the position that it is one of our primary duties to see that compulsion is not applied unless it is absolutely necessary.

With reference to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson)—not quite my right hon. Friend; I had forgotten that he is an Independent—I listened to him with great admiration. I agree that when we consider the terms of duty of these various sections of the community we must include certain performances which have to do with Civil Defence. In those circumstances, they should be informed when they undertake their duties of the full extent of their obligations.

The Under-Secretary told us that these words were necessary for the purpose of clarity. He said that the powers would be used sparingly and never unless it was absolutely necessary. I accept that position. I cannot see how we could work this scheme without a provision of this kind. I hope that those who are directly representative of the persons concerned will watch the administration of this scheme most carefully and see that no order or anything of that sort is brought in which may extend these powers. I issue that warning. We are apt to push forward a Clause such as this, and unless the representatives of the men keep their eyes on the administration, we may see these powers ill used without any wish on the part of the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary to do so. From that point of view, and from the point of view of trying to balance the two sides, I sincerely hope that the Amendment will be accepted. I hope, too, that the words of the Under-Secretary and of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities will receive further publicity and that the local authorities will be told precisely what the position is. I welcome the Amendment as an improvement of the position, although it is not by any means perfect.

I want my hon. Friend to direct his attention to one point. Representations have been made to me by young girls that this pro- vision is likely to vary entirely the terms of their employment. It is quite possible that they may be employed in local government offices where people concerned with this sort of training are liable to very officious. I want to know what steps the Minister of Health is likely to take to say how much of this kind of work in relation to training is to be done in peace time, whether steps will be taken to inform all people in local government offices that their terms of employment have been varied, and whether new recruits to local government will also be so informed.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, to leave out from "force," to the end of line 28.

Perhaps it would be convenient to deal with this and the next three Amendments in lines 29, 32 and 33. These Amendments are designed to meet the anxiety which was expressed in Committee concerning the provisions in this Clause relating to the revival, if necessary, in an amended form of the provisions of the earlier Civil Defence Acts. The House will appreciate that as the Clause stands, any provisions which are revived may be revived with adaptations. They may be amended or extended. They may be repealed, and if repealed a new Clause may be substituted. The view was expressed that that gave much too wide a power. These Amendments are designed to meet what my right hon. Friend hopes will be the wishes of the House in this respect. If the Amendments are accepted, the position will be that the former provisions may be revived, and there may be made in those revived provisions any such Amendments as appear to be required for certain clearly specified purposes.

The Amendment in line 32 specifies that the Amendments may be such as are required to adapt them

"to any changes which have occurred since the passing of the said Acts either in the law or in the relevant circumstances, including, in particular, any actual or apprehended developments in the forms of warfare."

That, I think, makes it clear that the Amendments could not amount to new provisions but would merely be such as were required to bring the provisions which were made before 1939 up to date in the light of existing circumstances.

In the Amendment to leave out line 33 and to substitute a new paragraph (d), the important word is "comparable." It will still be possible to repeal a provision and to substitute a new one, but it must be to substitute "any comparable provision" for "any provision." I hope the House will feel that that narrows the possibility of altering the old provisions to what is strictly necessary in order to bring them up to date.

As the Under-Secretary has rightly said, this group of Amendments deals with something which we on this side of the House regarded with great concern and on which we commented both on Second Reading and in Committee. At the conclusion of the Committee discussion on this Clause the Home Secretary threw out a suggestion that there might be consultation before the Report stage. These Amendments are the result of that consultation, and I think I can say on behalf of my hon. Friends that we regard the Amendments as effectively meeting the criticisms which we had to offer.

As the Under-Secretary has explained, there is no longer under the Clause an opportunity to introduce any subject matter foreign to what has appeared in previous enactments. There is a specific provision enabling those enactments, the Acts of 1937 and 1939, to be brought up to date so as to take account of changes in the law, of which there have been several and which are material in this connection, and changes in methods of warfare. In the proposed new paragraph (d) there is the useful and significant word "comparable," which I think ensures that provisions which are being discarded shall only be replaced by provisions of a similar or comparable character. In these circumstances, I ought to express, through the Under-Secretary, to his right hon. Friend, our appreciation of the care and consideration given to this matter, and our agreement with the proposed Amendments.

The Amendments will make a great improvement, but I want to enter a very emphatic protest against the lack of opportunity which we have had to consider them. I received the Bill yesterday morning. I did not receive the Amendments which we are now considering until I myself collected them from the Vote Office just before the House was beginning its business. I did not receive them by post.

These Amendments alter the provisions, but the original provisions gave to Ministers of the Crown powers wider than I have ever seen in a Bill before. The words about which I am still worried are "actual or apprehended" in the Amendment to line 32. I agree that the other Amendments substantially meet the points which were raised, but I should like to know what is the safeguard given by the word "apprehended." I have heard a good many speakers on many subjects in this House, and I have heard an enormous number of apprehensions expressed by hon. Members which I think a good many other hon. Members would have regarded as totally unjustified.

It is still going too wide to permit the Minister to exercise his discretion to insert—in fact, to promulgate—new legislation merely because he in his own mind considers that some particular apprehended development in the form of warfare may justify him in doing so. Therefore, while I consider that the Amendments go a long way to meet the point raised on this side of the House both on Second Reading and in Committee, for myself, having carefully safeguarded my decision on this specific point, I want to make it quite clear that I am still not satisfied that the safeguards are adequate. Moreover, I wish to repeat that I protest most strongly at the inadequate time which has been given us to consider these important matters.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Howard), in what he has said. These Amendments confer very considerable powers. With regard to the Amendment in line 32, I support what my hon. Friend said that there are a great many ways in which "actual or apprehended developments" might take place. This is very wide indeed. We have had almost no time at all to consult on this matter. We have had no legal advice as to what precisely this means in the Bill and I say, therefore, quite frankly, that however much some right hon. and hon. Members may be satisfied, up to now at any rate, I do not feel entirely happy on these points. It gives the Minister powers which may not always be well used. We realise the difficulties which may be caused, but I protest very strongly against the provisions we are making in these four Amendments. I hope most sincerely that in another place they will look very carefully, with the highest possible legal knowledge into what these Amendments mean and that they will have ample time to discuss them. I do not wish to make trouble over these Amendments, because I think they are, on the whole, genuine attempts to meet our point of view, but I myself am certainly not at all satisfied with the position.

This is a matter upon which consultation did of course take place on the suggestion of the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) and myself have given very careful consideration to the terms of these Amendments and, as no one can foresee precisely the forms of attack from which we may have to defend ourselves in the future, we think these words are as fair as any which the right hon. Gentleman could reasonably give in limiting the powers which he will take for Civil Defence in the future. I hope my hon. Friends behind me will be satisfied that these matters have been very carefully considered and that, so far as we can be satisfied, we are satisfied about the position. Of course, I share their disappointment that they were not able to see these Amendments sooner. This is perhaps a matter which might be raised on some other occasion. Perhaps it would be more convenient if Amendments to Bills which are coming up on a Friday morning could be circulated in advance as soon as they are put down at the Table.

With the leave of the House, perhaps I could say a few words in reply to the points raised by hon. Members opposite. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) for his remarks. Of course, the Home Secretary appreciates that there has been very little time for hon. Members to consider these Amendments. I would, however, say that it was made quite clear on the Committee stage what our proposed procedure was, namely that there should be consultations, and that there were only three days—rather less than three days, in fact—in which these consultations could take place and Amendments could be put down. I think there was no objection in any quarter of the House to that procedure, and I am afraid it was inevitable under that procedure that there should be, at the best, only a very short time during which hon. Members could consider the Amendments. As the right hon. Member for North Leeds has said, very careful consideration has been given to this by my right hon. Friend and his advisers, and by representatives of the Opposition, and I think hon. Members will appreciate that in the limited time available my right hon. Friend did everything that could be done to ensure that this was properly considered.

If I may deal with the one point of substance which has been raised, it is on the third Amendment, about this question of "apprehended developments." In view of the uncertain state of our knowledge about possible forms of attack, I doubt whether anybody can really object to a provision which allows the Secretary of State or the designated Minister, whoever he may be, to take into account, in training Civil Defence workers, apprehended as well as actual methods of attack. It would be quite impracticable to put in a provision which prevented him, in training, from taking into account apprehended methods of attack. I think, on reflection, hon. Members will see that there is no objection to that.

The Under-Secretary states that there were only three days. What does he mean?

On the Committee stage it was made quite plain when the further stage of the Bill was to be taken and at that time everybody knew what the time available would be.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 33, after "defence," insert:

"does not include the provision or maintenance of a shelter which is used or intended to be used wholly or mainly by naval, military or air forces but save as aforesaid."

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment were discussed with the next two in line 42 and page 8, line 14.

On the Committee stage there was criticism of the fact that the phrase "civil defence shelter" was so defined as possibly to permit the inclusion in that phrase of shelters which were to be provided by the Armed Forces purely for their passive defence. Anxiety was expressed lest certain works to be used entirely by the military might be placed on the local authorities so far as expenditure was concerned. In these Amendments we have sought to limit that definition of a civil defence shelter. The first of the Amendments excludes from the definition shelters which are,

"intended to be used wholly or mainly by naval, military or Air Forces."

The second Amendment confines the definition of a civil defence shelter to shelters other than those used for those purposes. The third Amendment is consequential, simply giving a definition of the word "shelter."

I have no reason to dispute these Amendments in any way, but I want to know what is the position of a college like the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth. Would it come under Civil Defence or would it be covered by this Amendment as part of the Admiralty? Perhaps this is a naval matter and that would exclude such a college from the possibility of the local authority having to meet the expense, but I should like to know the position of a college run by the Navy for training officers or boys. Would that be regarded as a military establishment or otherwise?

While these Amendments go a long way towards meeting the point which I raised on the Committee stage, I think there is evidence of rather hasty draftsmanship. I admit that I have not had long to look at them—just a cursory glance—but surely it would have made more sense if the first Amendment, to line 33, had been placed at the end of the paragraph defining a civil defence shelter. I suggest that if the word "but" were placed in front of the word "does" and the Amendment put at the end of the paragraph defining a shelter, that would have made it much more sensible. The Amendment speaks of "a shelter." but the Clause says:

"'a civil defence shelter' means any premises, structure or excavation used or intended to be used to provide shelter from any form of hostile attack by a foreign power."

The Amendment proposes to define a "shelter" at the end of the same definition Clause as that for police forces. Why those words should appear in that particular paragraph is beyond my comprehension. Would it not be better to run the whole definition of civil defence shelter into the same paragraph?

Those seem to me to be purely drafting points. I am afraid that any substantial difference that the hon. and gallant Gentleman sees between his meaning and the meaning of the Bill entirely escapes me. As regards his second point, I do not think that in an interpretation Clause there is necessarily any connection between one thing defined and another. The Clause contains a list of things defined.

As regards the question asked by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), it would be rash of me without notice to try to give a legal definition of what is civil and what is naval in a particular case. I am not in any way briefed as to the exact status of the Naval College or of the cadets there, but I should think that there would be no difficulty in practice in taking a decision as to whether they were or were not part of the naval forces.

I did not intend to spring a legal conundrum on the hon. Gentleman. However, this does effect my constituency at present; it will not after the next General Election, but it does now, and I am bound to look after my constituents' interests. Perhaps, the hon. Gentleman will get the legal point cleared up when the Bill reaches another place, and, perhaps, he will let me know personally about it, because he may thus save an awful lot of trouble.

Certainly.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, to leave out from "Minister," to "as."

I think it will be agreed that we should discuss together this Amendment and the last remaining Amendment, which is also in my name and the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends—in page 8, line 21, to leave out from "Council," to the end of line 23.

Without reflecting in any way upon the manner in which the Under-Secretary of State has discharged his duties, I cannot but express my regret that the Secretary of State is not in his place, because we are now dealing with what, in the view of those of us on this side of the House, is the only real question of substance that arises this morning. The matter is one which was discussed very fully in Committee. We have thought it necessary to return to the charge at this stage because we regard the issue which is involved as one of the highest importance from the standpoint of effective organisation.

Now, of course, we would all of us, I am sure, entirely accept the statement that the Home Secretary made on the previous occasion, in regard to the position which what he called "the presiding Minister" would occupy. He said that there would be a presiding Minister. That was his own expression. It does not appear in the Bill. He said that that Minister would have general responsibility over the whole field, including—and he emphasised the point more than once—responsibility for keeping his colleagues up to the mark. He did not use that expression. What he said was that the designated Minister—in the first instance the Home Secretary—would keep an eye on all branches of Civil Defence organisation, and if he found that any Minister concerned was not fulfilling his duties in a satisfactory way, it would be his business, his responsibility, to see that something was done about it. From my point of view—and I have some experience of these matters—that is quite a satisfactory conception.

However, our first criticism of the Bill is that its terms are directly contrary to that statement. They clearly contemplate in specific terms several Ministers all designated, all to be, so far as the Bill is concerned, on exactly the same footing. That is not really consistent with the conception that the Home Secretary put to the Committee at the earlier stage. I quite understand that other Ministers who may be concerned in Civil Defence may find the proposal to have one designated Minister rather unpalatable. Perhaps, on grounds of departmental prestige, they may prefer to be put on the footing of a designated Minister. I should be the last person to argue that departmental prestige does not matter: I think it matters a great deal.

However, if one looks at the position of these other Ministers, what is really going to happen? They will come into the picture of Civil Defence because of the nature of their normal functions. The Minister of Health comes in, the Minister of Transport comes in, the Minister of Food comes in, and so on. They come in because they have already duties which are relevant, and for which they are responsible to the public and to this House. There is nothing in this Bill that takes away any of these duties—nothing at all. The Home Secretary, when discussing the matter on the last occasion, referred to a provision in the Act of 1939—the provision which gives certain powers specifically to the Minister of Health. He seemed to be arguing that that was the reason for designating a Minister like the Minister of Health.

I think the point was a false one. The point was that the Minister of Health, at the time of the enactment of the Bill of 1939, had certain duties in respect of hospitals which that Bill gave him, and They became part of his normal functions, and the Bill said that he should have, and should be deemed to have had, them always. The Minister of Health, in winding up the Debate on Second Reading, made the point that the Minister of Health now has functions which had to be specially conferred upon him as part of the new Health Service.

All that this Bill does is to distribute responsibilities specifically in connection with Civil Defence, and the only issue which arises here is whether those Ministers, other than the presiding Minister, are to have those responsibilities specially assigned to them by making them designated Ministers for that purpose, or are to derive them by way of delegation, under Clause 1, from the presiding Minister. Our contention has been that they ought to be derived from the presiding Minister, and that there is nothing derogatory to the status and prestige of other Ministers in having that position. That is the first point.

I do not want to go over all the arguments put during the Committee stage, but I will briefly touch on some of them. There are one or two points that I want to make which are purely practical. First, let us take the position under the Clauses of the Bill which provide for the making of regulations. Is anyone going to argue that we shall get a better code of regulations if we distribute the functions in regard to making regulations among a number of designated Ministers? The idea is absurd. We want a code of regulations all properly dovetailed together and presented as a whole. That was secured under the earlier legislation because the regulations were then made by Order in Council, and every Order in Council goes forward as the act of the Government as a whole.

12 noon.

Consider the position of a rest centre provided by the local authority, acting no doubt under the general supervision of the Minister of Health, but supplying food through the exercise of the responsibilities of another Minister, the Minister of Food. If there is to be a regulation for a thing such as that, it must be one regulation; there cannot be one bit done by the Minister of Health and another bit by the Minister of Food. That, I suggest, is a strong practical argument for having one designated Minister. I would go on to say that, even if there is not one designated Minister there must certainly be one Minister for making regulations, and I do not see how to get him except by having one designated Minister.

My final point is one to which I attach very great importance and which I am afraid I did not bring out sufficiently in Committee. It concerns the organisation of Civil Defence Services. In the last war we suffered inevitably—and I speak from practical experience—from the manner in which the Civil Defence services had been built up. Those services were built up, not as one service but in separate detachments: there was the wardens' service, the first-aid service, the demolition service, and so on, all separate and distinct, and we had the task of trying to weld them together into one service.

There were 38 services.

There were certainly a lot. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate the force of the argument I am now advancing. We must not repeat that experience on a future occasion. We ought now to be planning and organising with a view of having a properly integrated Civil Defence service with a sense of unity. We shall never get the right atmosphere, the right status and the proper conception in the minds of the people concerned unless there is that unity, which we shall not get under a system involving a number of separate designated Ministers, all, so far as the law is concerned, on the same footing. For those reasons, I urge very strongly the acceptance of these Amendments which I consider to be vital to the provision of an efficient, properly organised Civil Defence service.

In support of my right hon. Friend, I should like to quote an example which occurred yesterday, arising out of a Question I asked the Home Secretary. I asked what instructions had been given to builders during the past year with regard to garages or cellars under new buildings which might be used in future as shelters. The answer was:

"None as yet,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 2164.]

followed by our old friend "active consideration." I would add that the Home Secretary did not try, under the present legislation, to shirk responsibility for this question; but I very much wonder whether, when this Bill becomes law, the answer to the same question would not be: "This is a matter for the Minister of Health," or perhaps for the Minister of Works.

I am sure that most of us agree with the general proposition of responsibility in trying to build up the new Civil Defence service, and I suggest—although I am not by any means a lawyer—that Subsection (2) of this Clause, to which reference has been made, does give the designated Minister the power it is suggested he should have, because it says:

"'The designated Minister' means such Minister, or such Ministers, acting jointly as may be designated by Order in Council."

The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) may be putting a limited interpretation on the words "as may be designated by Order in Council," without, of course, being able to foresee what those Orders in Council may be. It is, surely, conceivable that such an Order in Council may direct that the other Ministers must be subordinate to, report to, and act in conformity with any instructions given by the Minister primarily in control of Civil Defence. That is a possible interpretation of Subsection (2) which has been overlooked by the right hon. Gentleman.

As there is apparently to be no answer yet, perhaps I might have a shot. I welcome the fact that we now have the Home Secretary with us, because this is a most important Amendment. In saying that, I should like to assure the Home Secretary that during his absence there has been no falling off in the Under-Secretary's performance of his duties. In fact, the hon. Gentleman has probably done as well as the Home Secretary would have done, if not better. I do not want to be in any way unkind to his subordinate.

I realise that this is one of the fundamental Clauses of the Bill. The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) said the Bill might mean that by an Order in Council one Minister could be designated, and that that designation would lay down that he should have control over all the other matters. That might or might not be the case, but it is purely problematical. What I, and I think most of my hon. Friends, feel is that in dealing with such a problem the minds of the public outside would be relieved to know that one Minister was responsible. It is something which may affect—we hope it never will—thousands of lives, and responsibility should be fixed on one Minister, who has complete power over the other Ministers.

My right hon. Friend said he did not think it would be derogatory to the other Ministers to lay down in a Bill that they should come under the Minister of Health. I do not want to say anything derogatory of anyone, but whether or not something is derogatory of a Minister or his staff, is a very small matter compared with that unity of control which may save thousands of lives and speed up enormously the method or methods of dealing with these problems. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) made reference to a rather unfortunate answer he had from the Home Secretary yesterday. Those of us who have had experience of these matters realise that nothing holds up departmental work so much as doubt on which Minister is responsible.

I welcome the courtesy of the Home Secretary in listening to what I have said, because he had the great misfortune to miss the amazingly able speech of my right hon. Friend. I hope that on this occasion the Home Secretary will be able to meet the wishes of the Opposition, who have done everything in their power to help to make this a good Bill. All the way through we have been extremely friendly—at any rate, I have—and now that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to have further consultations, I express, on behalf of my hon. Friends, the hope that in his own interests and in the interests of the Bill, he will accept these Amendments. I would add that in granting the Minister this power, the House has the right to be quite certain that it knows who will be the Minister and the local authorities have the right to know that they will have to go to one Minister and not half a dozen.

I agree with the Home Secretary that the designated Minister ought to be the Home Secretary so long as we accept the definition of Civil Defence in Clause 9, but what is raised here in relation to unified control is whether the next war will be in the least similar to the last so far as Civil Defence is concerned. My feeling is that there was great reality in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) on the Committee stage in relation to paratroops arriving in this country. I am certain that in that sort of event the definition of Civil Defence will be inadequate. As soon as the definition becomes inadequate, the designated Minister under this Clause ought not to be the Home Secretary. The Minister I have in mind to replace him in such an event is the Minister of Defence.

The matter of delegated responsibility under the Bill resembles the issuing of a military operation order by a commander. At the moment we have the Home Secretary as the commander. There are various branches such as the "Q" branch, which is the Ministry of Supply, the medical service under the Ministry of Health and Movements under the Ministry of Transport. It may happen that when we really want unified control in the event of Civil Defence having to cover a wider scope than is envisaged under the Bill, we shall have the Minister of Defence in charge, with the Home Secretary taking orders from him.

However, I realise that, as the case for the Bill has been presented by His Majesty's Government so far, we are not visualising actual hostilities in operation—that is the impression I have from what the right hon. Gentleman has said on earlier occasions—and that this is essentially the preparatory stage in peace. That may be all right as the matter stands, but the Home Secretary ought to give the matter further consideration and make certain that he has based the re- sponsibility of the Minister and the definition of Civil Defence on reality and not on what I believe to be wishful thinking.

I should like to make it clear from this side of the House that, having taken a great interest in the Debate from its inception, I have had a change of heart due to the arguments I have heard. In practice, what we have had, when faced with a situation such as we are discussing, and what we shall have if the same situation arises in the future, is the Minister the Opposition wish to have, and that is the Minister of Defence. There is an organisation outside this House which is run by the Cabinet; it is the Defence Committee. In modern wars the Secretaries of State for the Naval, Military and Air Services must march equally with the Secretary of State who looks after Civil Defence. Once we have our representative for the Civil Defence side of Defence, he must issue orders and have discussions with certain other Ministers. For instance, there is the evacuation of school children, about which the Minister of Health must be consulted. A number of other Ministers are also concerned in other matters.

The Home Secretary unites these functions and presumably sits on the committee with representatives of the other Services. That committee is presided over by somebody, and during the last war it was the Minister of Defence who was also the Prime Minister. Presumably, that sort of organisation would operate. Therefore, in practice, while these preparations are being made, we have that kind of organisation working now, and should a crisis arise, the chairman immediately assumes the part of a dictator.

12.15 p.m.

There is very little between the two sides of the House over the Amendment. Perhaps if we have an explanation from the Secretary of State we may find that we are really in common agreement as long as we can be satisfied that when the crisis arises there can be prompt action, the machine can click into action like the gear of a motor car, and wherever an atom or germ bomb drops, there is an organisation to come into being at once like the soldiers in the Greek legend who rose out of the earth.

I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) is a convert to the Amendment and the principle which it attempts to get the Home Secretary to adopt. I am extremely sorry that the Home Secretary missed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) who put the arguments with all the weight of his authority and his experience. Even though the Home Secretary missed it, I would not presume to try to repeat it, but the Home Secretary has heard many of the arguments before. The House has not yet heard a single argument in favour of the abandonment of this suggestion. All we have heard in previous Debates on this subject is a series of somewhat lame excuses and no good reason for not adopting it.

Anybody who has had any experience of the workings of Whitehall knows the inherent viciousness and troubles in the present system. I can see so clearly how things will not be done and how it will not be anybody's fault that they are not done. One of the greatest dangers of the system by which things get done in this country is the danger of collective irresponsibility. The Home Secretary has a great chance of showing to the House that on occasions common sense can prevail. Can he overrule the difficulties which, I believe, stand in the way of some decisions, not for any logical reason but because of the extended egos of various Government Departments? Everyone wants to retain his status and powers, instead of coming to an agreement. That is the only reason why this proposal is retained. It would be very cheering for everybody if in the light of the overwhelming arguments submitted, which have been unanswered, the Home Secretary were to say that he would think about the matter and report back.

Two considerations move me to rise now rather than to wait until after the Home Secretary has spoken, which is usually considered to carry with it debating advantage. These are the considerations. All through the proceedings on the Bill the Secretary of State has met us extremely fairly. He has considered the Amendments put forward on their merits. He has accepted some of them and has taken others away for consideration and met us on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore shown that he is open to the influence of discussion and debate upon all matters connected with the Bill. The second consideration which moves me to speak at this stage is that on this Amendment we have such a strong case that I can forgo any debating advantage which might come from following the right hon. Gentleman.

This Amendment has been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). He, of all people, has an absolutely unrivalled experience and unquestioned capability in the field of Civil Defence administration. I should have thought his views would carry great weight with the Government in this matter. The Home Secretary, replying on the Committee stage, said that it was very largely a matter of mere words, and I agree that on reading the second speech of the right hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage it would seem that, as regards what is intended, both sides of the House are at one. But words are very important when put into an Act of Parliament, and it is not what the Home Secretary said in his second speech during the Committee stage that really matters, but what are the words contained in the Bill. On the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman said:

"It is intended that Governmental responsibility for the new Civil Defence organisation shall be shared, as in the 1939–45 war, by the Ministers whose peace-time functions are analogous to those which the organisation would have to discharge in time of war."

He went on to tell us:

"Unless and until some other Minister is designated, responsibility under Clause 1 rests on the Secretary of State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 23rd November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1092.]

I moved Amendments on the Committee stage designed to secure that there should be one Minister and one Minister only, who should be the designated Minister. In reply the right hon. Gentleman stated:

"The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has advocated one alternative. The structure of the Bill proceeds on the basis of the other alternative"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1948, Vol. 458, c. 1826.]

But the fact is that the Bill proceeds on the structure of two alternatives for in Subsection 2 of Clause 1 the Bill contains the power of the designated Minister to delegate powers to other Ministers. That is quite incompatible with the provision we are now discussing in Clause 9, which enables a whole group of Ministers to be the designated Minister for the purpose of the Measure. Delegation by the designated Minister to other Ministers and the designation of a group of Ministers to act jointly and collectively as the designated Minister, are two conceptions which are quite incompatible. Those two alternatives must have been included in the Bill as a result of disagreement amongst Ministers.

What is in the Bill, it seems, must represent a compromise and bargain, an attempt to reconcile conflicting rivalries and jealousies, either between Departments, or between the Ministers who preside over them. I am perfectly satisfied with the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman when he replied on a similar Amendment on the Committee stage. He made it perfectly clear time and again that the Home Secretary would be the presiding Minister. I think he went so far as to say that the Home Secretary would, if necessary, knock the heads of dissident Ministers together.

indicated dissent.

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Here are his actual words:

"… the Home Secretary will secure effective collaboration between the Departments which are jointly responsible for Civil Defence measures…."

He can only secure effective collaboration if from time to time he is prepared to use the schoolmaster's stick. He went on to say a little later:

"…. it will be the duty of the Home Secretary of the day to see that where two Departments have functions that may involve both in a particular service, each does its allocated share, that there is no gap left, and that there is no duplication."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1948, Vol. 458, c. 1827.]

Those statements are highly satisfactory. They seem to indicate that the Home Secretary is in fact to be the presiding Minister and to have sufficient power to be able to tell other Ministers, of whom at least eight or nine are concerned, what they must, or must not, do.

But when we come to the Bill, it is incomprehensible why power is taken in Subsection 2, Clause 9, to designate a whole group of Ministers as the effective and controlling force. This Subsection seems to embody the idea that the group of Ministers can act with a group mind in the same way as do a covey of partridges. They are all going to rise and fall together, automatically, inspired by a common purpose from the unseen. But, of course, we know in practice that that is not the way in which Ministers' minds operate. It is perfectly clear that if a group of Ministers is designated as the effective controlling force, those Ministers will all have to be in agreement before anything can be done. We think that is likely to lead to confusion, delay and lack of any clear-cut responsibility, and it is vital in a matter of this kind that the House of Commons should be able to fix responsibility definitely on a single Minister and hold him answerable for the progress of Civil Defence measures.

We are quite convinced of the justice of our case on this issue. For that reason, I have intervened at this stage in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman may have been able, during the course of my remarks, to give further consideration to the points we have made and to indicate some hope that he will think once more and possibly introduce in another place an Amendment such as we desire.

I listened with great care to the argument produced by the right hon. Member for Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) and, if I understood him, he did not dispute the fact that there would be several Ministers who would have to be concerned with the operation of Civil Defence, however we visualise it. But he felt that one of those Ministers should be designated as a kind of dictator who would direct the other Ministers in administering the services for which they were responsible. Whilst I share with the right hon. Gentleman the need for reducing the number of services that will be under the control of separate Ministers in future Civil Defence work, I do not see any difficulty, provided those duties are clearly defined and reduced in number, in operating the Bill as drafted.

First, may I express my sincere apologies to the House that I was not present when the Debate on these Amendments started. At another meeting at which I was present the arguments took rather longer than I had anticipated, and on the timetable I had sketched out as likely to operate this morning, the arguments here appear to have taken substantially less time than was anticipated. However, I apologise sincerely to the House and to the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) who has been exceedingly helpful throughout this Bill, and I hope the House will acquit me of showing any disrespect either to the House itself or to the right hon. Gentleman.

As I understand the idea put forward by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is that all Civil Defence powers should be concentrated in one Minister. If this were a single Service like the Army, or the Air Force, that might be possible, but it may well be that in the course of devising a Civil Defence scheme we shall have to call on practically the whole range of the civil Departments, and that all the technical advice and experience required for formulating policy will be found in officers of each separate Department in the first place. Any Minister who had all these powers concentrated in him would immediately be faced with the necessity of delegating to each of his colleagues their particular sphere. The machine would merely exist as a sort of clearing house, all the powers coming to him and he at once seeing that they all flowed out again.

I do not think in time of peace, in the time of preparation, that that would be desirable. It is far better that each Minister should understand the responsibility which he and his Department must accept in this matter. Therefore, I made it quite clear, both on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, that we have decided that the arrangement proposed in the Bill is for the period of preparation. However, during that period I accepted on behalf of whoever may hold my office the responsibility for seeing that this work is carried out, and that there shall be no gaps and no duplication. Cer- tainly I did not use any words which indicated that I would commit a physical assault——

No.

—on any of my colleagues, either by knocking their heads together or, as I gathered the right hon. Gentleman later suggested, by applying something else to another and softer part of their anatomy.

Would it be softer?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the case of all my colleagues it would be a softer part. I believe that is the reasonable way in which to conduct this Service in time of peace.

In reply to what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn), I hoped that I had made it clear during the Debate on the Committee stage, when I took the liberty of reading to the Committee a document which was carefully thought out, that this is a matter which comes under the Committee of Defence, of which the Prime Minister is Chairman, of which the Minister of Defence is Vice-Chairman, and all our arrangements made for Civil Defence have to be brought into line with the other requirements for defence. The Home Secretary is the Minister responsible for bringing to the Defence Committee both the conclusions and the needs of the Civil Defence services as they are discovered from time to time.

I cannot help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) rather extends what may be necessary in the realm of Civil Defence into services which we regard as quite outside our province. We do not anticipate that we shall be required to deal with paratroops. That could be the work of the Home Guard, but the Home Guard was never a branch of the Civil Defence Service. It was raised and organised by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) when he was Secretary of State for War, and I cannot think that in any circumstances it would be regarded as part of the duty of Civil Defence to repel invasion. I do not say that if there was an invasion a member of the Civil Defence service might not do what every other patriotic citizen would do—hinder the enemy as much as possible—but he would do that as a citizen and not as a member of the Civil Defence Force. In fact I could see circumstances in which he might be charged with being a deserter from the Civil Defence force if he was inspired to go off, neglect his proper duties, and take part in the repulsion of an enemy invasion. Therefore, we do not regard paratroopers and other forms of hostile activities of that kind as coming within our Service.

The point I make is that when such a situation as the right hon. Gentleman has just visualised arises, to try to separate civil from military defence is clearly a waste of time and quite impracticable.

After all, that is a matter that will arise after hostilities have commenced. In preparing I do not think we should expect somebody whom we have marked off to be, say, a shelter warden, should regard himself as being a prospective front-line combatant. We believe, and I do not think there is any inconsistency in the Bill, that there is no reason why the separate Ministries concerned should not prepare; in fact they will have to prepare, their own regulations and submit them to the House for confirmation. We believe that in that way we shall get the best service from each Department, and I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the form of the Bill arises from no conflict of interest between the Departments. At no stage has there been any quarrel about the way in which this work should be done.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about delegation to the second Minister. The designated Minister may delegate some of his powers to a second Minister. I will explain the point we have in mind. It may very well be that the Minister of Health might designate the Minister of Pensions to be the responsible Minister for, say, providing artificial limbs because he himself has not the service. That is, in fact, a service which is performed by the Ministry of Pensions, as I have every reason to know from my own family experience.

As far as these Amendments are concerned, I am prepared to accept the first one moved by the right hon. Gentleman, to omit the words:

"or such Ministers acting jointly."

It must be understood, of course, that there will be occasions on which the Ministers will have to consider matters jointly. For instance, on Committee, I gave the example of evacuation in which the Ministers of Health, Education and Transport are certainly involved. In fact, as one who went to the Board of Education—as it then was—just at the time when the second evacuation was taking place, I am quite sure that better arrangements would have been made had the Board of Education in those days been more closely associated with the evacuation scheme. Quite clearly, it will be necessary on a subject like that for these three Ministers to get together. One hopes—in fact, I am quite certain that, so far as this Government are concerned, it would happen—that those Ministers would have joint consultations before each drafted the regulations which covered his particular sphere of the work. I do not think it necessary, or, perhaps, even desirable, that a group of Ministers should actually be designated, because that might lead to the kind of shuffle between one and the other which we are anxious to avoid. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the first Amendment.

I cannot accept the second Amendment because that would prevent the Minister of Health being designated for the whole range of health services, and the Minister of Transport for docks, harbours, and so on. I suggest that when one gets down to the actual detailed work, it should be made quite clear to this House and to the general public who is the Minister really responsible for doing the job. It might lead to confusion in the minds of the public if one Minister were designated until such time as a Minister of Home Security were appointed. If there were a proposal that there should be a Minister of Home Security—there is no such proposal—I think there would be more substance than there is in the argument of the Opposition while things remain as they are at present. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that I have deserved the few kind words which he delivered at the opening of his speech about my being still open to listen to discussion and debate. I repeat that I will accept the first Amendment, but that, on the general principles I have advanced, I think the House would be ill-advised to accept the second Amendment.

By leave of the House, I should like to say that I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that his proposal to delete from the Subsection the words:

"or such Ministers acting jointly"

goes a very long way to meet the objections from this side of the House. It will mean that, although different Ministers may be designated, the functions of each designated Minister will be clearly laid down in the Order in Council, and that the whole House and the public will know what is the sphere of his responsibilities. That seems to us to mark a great advance from the provisions originally in the Bill, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession.

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

In the discussion we have just had we ranged over the general principles behind this Bill. I wish to express my thanks to the whole House for the way in which they have helped to frame this Measure so that it really emerges at its Third Reading as a House of Commons Measure to which all parties have made their appropriate contribution. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said on Second Reading, it is very gratifying that we have been able to discuss a Measure of this kind in no spirit of panic, and that there has been a general desire, from both sides of the House, to see that as workmanlike a Measure as possible is produced.

I want to repeat what I said previously. This Bill is designed to deal with the preparatory period. We believe that preparation for this matter is essential; it is no act of aggression on our part. We feel that the country should be prepared for any eventuality that may happen, and that the powers in this Bill will enable us, on the side of Civil Defence, steadily to take those steps that are necessary to afford appropriate protection to our people, and to assure the maintenance of morale. I thank the House most sincerely for the reception they have given to this Measure.

Although there has been such general agreement on the main principle of this Bill, and much accommodation on both sides of the House with regard to the details, I think that one voice at least should be raised against the Measure itself. I speak, not as a pacifist—I have never belonged to that school of thought—but as one who has tried to take a detached view of this problem. For several reasons, in my opinion, it is a pity that this Bill has been introduced at all.

The first is that there is no urgency about the matter at the moment; indeed, there is quite a possibility that there never will be. Another reason is that it will worsen rather than improve international relations. Then, again, I think that it will have a harmful effect on the minds of those who take part in it. With regard to the cost, it may make the difference in the economy of the country between recovery and decline. On the technical side, I think that failure is more probable than success.

Civil Defence is in an entirely different category from that of the three Armed Services. They have a job to do every day of the week. We may deplore the troubled state of the world, but there is the occupation of Germany, the trouble in Malaya, and the difficulties all over the world. Therefore, the garrisons are still necessary. But to add a new service at this stage, and one which, to begin with, will have nothing at all to do, seems to me to be wrong. In any case, the need for it cannot possibly arise for a long time to come. My reason for saying that is that it took the Allies three and a half years of work, with the pick of the scientists of both hemispheres, to get the atom bomb into action. The Russians, with a much smaller scientific force to draw on and many other disadvantages, will take a much longer time. Some careful students of this subject have guessed twice as long. That is seven years from 1945 until their production begins, and that will be till 1952.

The function of the Bill is to make further provision for Civil Defence. It gives the functions of Ministers. It does not give the whole history of what might happen. Discussion of that kind, and observations about how the atom bomb is prepared, would be appropriate on the Second Reading. They are not appropriate upon the Third Reading, which is confined to what is in the Bill and the effects of the Bill, and not upon what is outside the Bill.

I was trying to draw attention to the length of time that will intervene before the Bill is necessary, and I was doing so as an argument that it is unnecessary to introduce the Bill now. Surely that line of argument is in Order. The length of time which will intervene before Civil Defence against the atom bomb will be required is according to the rate of production, which is very small indeed. Sufficient has been published on this matter for us to get some idea of the figures. The Americans are said to have been increasing their rate of production. I think there is no doubt about that. It means that by the time the Russians start, the Americans will have a considerable lead. It is highly probable that the Russion rate of production, at the beginning at any rate, will be less than that of the Americans, so that for quite a long time the advantage will be entirely on the side of the Americans. For these reasons——

I must again remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is going quite outside the scope of the Third Reading.

I will leave that section of my argument, Mr. Speaker, and proceed to the next, and that is the effect of the Bill on the mind of the civil population who take part in operating it. In my experience, the people of this country, the ordinary folk, do not understand the nature of international antagonisms. They are confused by what they read in the papers. They do not really believe a great deal that they read. Their feeling towards the Russian people is far more friendly than that of the people who write in the papers.

As the Civil Defence services begin to be put into operation and people begin to see holes dug in the ground, people getting into uniforms, orders and instructions being issued, the effect on their minds will be to make the whole idea of international antagonism much more real. They will be taught in lectures the terrible effect of the new weapons and the enormous efforts that must be made to combat them. They will believe worse of populations of other countries than they otherwise would do. As they work day by day preparing for an attack, the idea of the attack will become much more real to them, and fear and hatred will be engendered.

With regard to the economics of the matter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us repeatedly that the possibility of our paying our way depends upon a series of favourable circumstances, and that if those favourable circumstances do not occur there will be disaster in front of us in the shape of a declining standard of living and the troubles, dissentions and disorders which will follow from it. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he was asked how much the Bill was likely to cost, said that he could not give any figure at all. We all know how public money tends to disappear when these vast, vague projects are put forward. As it was the last straw which broke the camel's back, so this Bill may well result in the load of bricks which cripples the poor creature altogether.

On the technical side one would say that the fact that Russia is so much at a disadvantage compared with America would make the possibility or the probability of what was called during the Second Reading "an orthodox war," one in which there are declarations of war and a certain amount of warning, out of the question. American thought is turning in the direction of the knock-out blow. What might have to be envisaged is preparation for extremely sudden action. That is the sort of problem that will have to be set the scientists. One would say to the scientists: "You have to prepare for something which the enemy is trying to make as unexpected as possible. You have to disregard all the possibilities of better feeling and of appeasement in general taking place. You have to tackle the problem of something which the opponent has schemed to the very utmost of his ability to make sudden and unexpected." The scientists would be set apart to deal with this extremely difficult problem, and I can imagine that after a couple of years or so they would come back and admit that the problem was too difficult, or else they would demand such great expenditure that the whole thing would be impossible anyhow.

It seems to me, in conclusion, that science has made war now so terribly destructive that war has ceased to serve a useful purpose. In the past it was a safety valve which did settle some disputes.

I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is not dealing with what is in the Bill. It may be interesting to discuss the uselessness of war, but that subject is not in the Bill.

I conclude by saying that the time appears to me to have arrived for warfare to be regarded as obsolete, and that therefore the aspect of war preparation dealt with in the Bill is unnecessary.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have no intention of following the line of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon). I would remind him, however, that this is a preparatory Bill. Those who have had longer experience welcome the Bill as a preparatory and non-controversial Measure. We realise that by taking forethought we may be able to strengthen our position. Now I will deliberately leave that argument, which is not advisable on the Bill.

The change which has been made in Clause 9, after very considerable argument, does not go as far as some on this side would wish, but I believe that it fulfills the main purpose of the Bill, which should be to have one authority that starts the control of this matter and has power to pass it over to the requisite and proper authorities. I am completely satisfied with the Bill. I have taken a considerable interest in this matter, although I have only taken a small part in the discussion on the Bill, and I do not wish in any way to bring those points up again. Some of these Civil Defence arrangements will have to be reorganised from time to time.

I welcome the Bill above all because it has been an example of co-operation among all parties in the House. We have been able to do something to strengthen our nation. I am sure that the Bill is absolutely necessary. I have to complain of the shortness of time between the various stages of the Bill, but I do not regret that as much as I would on other occasions, because it is important that we should be prepared as far as we can, and it should be shown that this is not a party matter in any sense but one in which we work in common in the interests of the country.

It is somewhat unfortunate and unhappy that after six years of war it should be necessary today to have a Bill of this kind before the House, but I take it that the Government have access to sources of information which are not generally available, and that they feel it necessary to introduce the Bill. Therefore, I should like to say to the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary that while I have had to take a firm line in regard to certain Clauses of the Bill, I feel sure that, having got the Bill, I can say to them that those on whose behalf those objections were put forward will do their utmost to make a success of what is desired in connection with the Bill. Having said that, I do beg that in the working out of the provisions of the Bill there shall he the fullest measure of consideration and consultation at all levels in order that there shall not be unhappy repercussions arising from the considerations which I ventured to submit to the House.

It should be said from this side of the House that there are people who are in complete disagreement with the point of view which has been expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon). The tenor of his speech was just as unreal as if there had been someone in this House in 1900 who had made a serious proposal that we should abolish the British Navy. It seems to me that in these days it is our bounden duty to carry this Bill, whatever party may be running our country. Indeed, it is rather overdue. We could quite easily have been doing this last year.

I hope that the provisions will be carried out by the designated Minister and that from time to time, we in this House will be able to hear about some of the proposals made and the organisations set up, etc. I urge the Home Secretary that when these organisations are set up in the months to come, an eye should be cast on those successful organisations which have carried out such measures. The only place where they have been carried out has been in Germany. That was at the height of our bombing campaign. We have a lot to learn in the building up of organisations of this kind, from the work of Goebbels and similar people. They did a good job of work in the face of the biggest onslaught the world has ever seen in battle. We should be wise to get as many facts and figures as we can and stories of experiences of the horrible things in Hamburg and elsewhere, so that the people who are responsible in this country can base their future plans on the only solid experience which the world has so far had.

In his speech on Second Reading, the Home Secretary mentioned the possibility of a scientific adviser. That scientific adviser must be the most important person in this organisation. He must be given every facility to study all development, wherever it may take place. Intelligence services all the world over should be put at his disposal. He is the man who in a crisis will save the lot of us; it will not be, the Government who will do that; it will be that scientific adviser. I hope that, so far as secrecy will allow, we in this House will from time to time be told of the progress he is making, for our lives will depend on the work of this man.

This is now a much better Bill than it was when it received its Second Reading. That is a result of collaboration and suggestions from different parts of the House. I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretary for the courteous and considerate way in which they have conducted the proceedings on this Bill.

I beg to move,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 25th October, 1948, entitled the Knacker's Yard Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 2353), a copy of which was presented on 26th October, be annulled."

I should make it absolutely clear at the outset that my hon. Friends and I have no desire whatever to place any obstacle in the way of the authorities in dealing effectively with the black market. Indeed, we desire to assist them to use the right method in order to suppress abuses and undesirable practices. Perhaps it may be thought that that need not have been said, but I have said it because it has been suggested occasionally, when we have moved to annul orders made by various Ministries, that we have been facilitating black market operations. Therefore, I wish to make it clear that what we are endeavouring to do is to secure that the right method is adopted.

In that we have the powerful support of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments which, like all Select Committees of this House at the present time, contains a preponderance of Members of the party opposite. In the Second Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which was printed only yesterday, it is stated on page 3:

"Your Committee have also considered the Knacker's Yard Order, 1948 and are of the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on the ground that it appears to make an unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statutes under which it is made."

Before I proceed to deal with the order, I should explain why it has been unavoidable that such short notice of this Motion should have been given. As I explained, this Report of the Select Committee was printed only yesterday, although it was actually laid on Tuesday. Of course, I am making no complaint against anyone in this connection; I am merely stating the fact that it was only available yesterday. Unfortunately, the 40 days during which it is competent for any Member to move to annul this order will be up tomorrow. Therefore, this is the last and only day upon which we are able to move this Motion.

As I said, the Select Committee has made this Report to the House. They made the Report only after consideration of a long and excellent memorandum submitted to them by the Ministry of Food. It was only after consideration of that memorandum, which presented the case for the Ministry with the most able advocacy, that they decided to report to the House that this order,

"appears to make an unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statutes. …"

I will first explain the position under the present law, which still remains in force. Under Section 57 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, we have a very comprehensive code for the licensing and control of knackers' yards by the local authority, the local authority being either the borough council or the urban or rural district council concerned. Before I proceed I should say that the definition of a knacker's yard in the order is the same as in the Act which I have mentioned. It states:

"Knacker's Yard' means any premises used in connection with the business of slaughtering, flaying or cutting up of animals, the flesh of which is not intended for human consumption."

That is the distinction between a knacker's yard and a slaughterhouse. In the case of a slaughterhouse, the production is intended for human consumption. Section 57 of the 1938 Act provides that no one shall be able to carry on the business of a knacker's yard without being annually licensed by the local authority. The local authority may not grant or renew a licence until the officer of the authority has inspected the premises. There are also provisions for the local authority requiring work to be carried out in order to render the premises suitable.

There are safeguards in the Act in order to ensure that injustice is not done. First, it is provided that if the local authority should refuse to grant or to renew a licence, and if the person affected so requires, they must state their reasons for refusing. Then, if the person affected is dissatisfied with the position, he may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. That is a very valuable safeguard. It is further provided that the local authority may make by-laws for ensuring proper sanitary conditions at knackers' yards and may require the proprietors to keep proper records. It is also there provided that a licensed knacker must display a notice outside his premises; "Licensed knacker's yard." Therefore it will be seen that before this order was made—and I should emphasise that this Act is still in full force, and is not affected by the order which is superimposed upon it—we had already very substantial provisions which have received the full consideration of Parliament.

I will now read the first paragraph of the explanatory note of the order. It states:

"This Order requires the occupier of knacker's yard in England or Wales to hold a licence granted by the Minister of Food under this Order in addition to any other licence to use the premises as a knacker's yard granted by a local authority under the existing law."

I feel that that is a very drastic provision. It is superimposed upon the existing law which provided for control by the local authorities, with obligations to state their reasons, and with an ultimate appeal to the court of summary jurisdiction. This order provides no such safeguard. It makes the Minister a complete autocrat. Notwithstanding the fact that a proper knacker's yard may completely satisfy the local authority in all their requirements, the knacker must now also obtain a licence from the Minister, which the Minister can revoke at any time without giving any reason, and there is no appeal whatever to the courts. The House will therefore appreciate the very drastic character of this order, and I feel that we should require to be convinced of its absolute necessity and also that there is no reasonable alternative.

The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, referred to this matter during the Debate on 28th October when it was then under discussion. It had been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe), who was concerned about the position. The hon Lady said:

"We find that, in these cases, when we send an inspector, male or female, to make a purchase for some curious reason the controlled price is always charged."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1948: Vol. 457, c. 386.]

The question I wish to ask is whether, by the imposition of this order and the introduction of the Minister's inspectors, we are going to gain any advantage at all. The hon. Lady, rather pathetically complains——

Not pathetically.

—that when her inspectors go round, for some curious reason the controlled price is always charged. I rather suspect that one reason is that a person who gets employment as a snooper always looks like one. I am reminded of what was said by the chief of police in a Balkan State. He was complaining of the difficulty of catching brigands. He said, "You see, my men are on duty during the day, but for some reason the brigands always operate at night." In view of the admitted inability of the hon. Lady's inspectors we must consider whether this order will serve any useful purpose. I would refer to her reply on 11th November to the Question by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke). She said:

"I would like to say that our enforcement officers have paid special attention to knackers' yards during recent months but have found no other case of this kind.'

She was referring to certain prosecutions that had taken place. There she says that although her officers have paid special attention to knackers' yards, they have found no other case of that kind. I doubt how far this order is necessary at all, and if an order of this kind is necessary, whether this is the right way of doing it. I will make certain suggestions which I hope are constructive.

My first suggestion is that the proper way is co-operation between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry's officers and the local authorities. I would pray in aid in support of this suggestion what the hon. Lady herself said later on in the same reply on 11th November.

"The responsibility for enforcing this Act"—

that is, the Act of 1938—

"rests with the local authorities and we rely on them to exercise constant vigilance to prevent such cases remaining undetected. With this object the Ministry of Food officers have been instructed to co-operate to the fullest extent with officers of the local authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th Nov., 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1734.]

Does the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that any of the local authorities are refusing to co-operate? If so, that is a serious matter and the hon. Lady ought to tell us which local authorities have been obstructive. Surely, the right way is for the Ministry and the local authorities to pull together. Indeed, that line was suggested by the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Ministry's memorandum, which was before the Select Committee, stated:

"The Association of Municipal Corporations suggested that the objectives of the proposed Order could be secured by arrangements to be agreed upon between the Ministry of Food and the local authorities."

That is what should be done. The hon. Lady must make a strong case. I do not see how she can do that unless she is prepared to say that the local authorities, or some of them, are obstructive. If she says that, she ought to tell the House which they are, because obviously that is a very serious matter.

I should like to make another suggestion by which this Order, if we are to have it, could at any rate be made fairer. I do not like the order at all, but if we are to have an order, which superimposes the power of the Minister upon the existing law, at least there should be an appeal from the Minister's decision. On that point the same memorandum by the Ministry of Food to some extent anticipates me. It says:

"Nor does the Statute under which the Order has been made make provision for appeals from the Minister's decision."

The statute, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, would not make an express provision of that kind, because it was a general enabling Act. That Act, which continued in force Defence Regulations, taken together with the Regulations, gives such very wide powers to the Government that I should have thought it would have been within those powers—I may be wrong—for an order to provide for an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against the Minister's decision. If I am wrong, I should like to know whether, before inserting this paragraph in the memorandum, the Ministry took the advice of the law officers. That is a most important point. In the memorandum the implication is that it is not possible in one of these orders to make provision that there shall be any appeal from a Minister's decision. I should like to know whether, in the considered view of the Law Officers of the Crown, that is the case.

Bearing in mind the wide interpretation which the Government always attach to their powers under the Defence Regulations, I should have thought that it would not be stretching those powers too far to provide that there should be an appeal from the decision of the Minister to a court of law. We want to find the right way of doing this, if indeed it is necessary to take any steps in the matter. I am afraid that even when they are looking for the right way the Ministry of Food often seem to show a genius for finding the wrong way. Surely the right way, if it is considered that the powers of local authorities under the Act of 1938 are insufficient, would be to amend that Act. Apparently the Ministry take the view that the powers of local authorities under that Act are insufficient, because in the memorandum from the Ministry of Food which was before the Select Committee, it is stated:

"These provisions…"

that is, the provisions of the Act of 1938—

"…do not, however, specifically require local authorities to take into account, when considering applications for the granting of licences for new premises, the question of the number and location of existing yards in the surrounding area and it is doubtful, therefore, whether local authorities can properly be influenced in their decision by this question."

That is very interesting, and it may be that the Ministry are right. Surely then the proper course would be to amend the Act of 1938. That could be done by a very short Bill which I should think would not be controversial in this House. If the reply from the Minister is that that procedure would take too long—I do not think it would take very long—then I suggest that they should make a temporary order and I think that we would accept it if it were really a temporary order which would remain in force only until an Act was passed amending in a suitable manner the Act of 1938 in order to give the local authorities the necessary powers.

I have suggested various courses all of which I think are reasonable and which would satisfy three considerations. First, they would ensure that there was adequate power to deal with the black market and to stop abuses. Secondly, they would ensure co-operation between the Ministry of Food and the local authorities. Thirdly, they would secure justice for the individuals affected by such administrative action. We should ensure those three considerations, and we should not forget the last of them. Under this order there is no provision whatever for appeal. The Minister is a complete autocrat. He can revoke a licence at any time and the individual is deprived completely of the right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction which he has under the Act. It is a high-handed deed to make this order without ensuring that there is some provision for a review of the Minister's decision.

In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Lady will deal carefully with the points I have made and that she will say whether she is prepared to introduce legislation to amend the Act of 1938. If she is prepared to do that, then I am content that this order should remain for the interim period, provided the legislation is to be introduced forthwith. If she is not prepared to do that, is she prepared to introduce an amending order to secure that there shall be right of appeal from the Minister's decision? I think that at least she should introduce some modification in order to meet the objections which my hon. Friends and I are raising.

I beg to second the Motion.

It would be as inappropriate as it would be unchivalrous unnecessarily to deprive the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food of her lunch. I am, therefore, glad that the hon. Baronet has made it clear that this Motion has had to be moved today because this is the last day on which it could be moved. It seems to me that that fact reveals a considerable weakness in the power of this House to control delegated legislation. It is the fact, as the hon. Baronet has said, that the Select Committee whose duty it is to consider this matter was able to make its report on this order available to the House only yesterday. That puts hon. Members in a difficult position. I say with respect that I personally have the greatest admiration for the untiring zeal of the Select Committee. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), who I know is a most zealous member of that Committee, is in his place this afternoon.

When hon. Members see an order of this kind which the Select Committee is considering, they are in a grave position. If they put down a Motion to annul before the Select Committee has considered the order, not only might they seem to be showing disrespect to the Select Committee, but equally they would be handicapped by not having the result of the Committee's very well-informed and—as the hon. Member for East Islington will agree—very well-advised deliberations. On the other hand, because of the inevitable passage of time, if they wait they find themselves in the position of being right up against and over the time limit. Therefore, I suggest this matter is of very wide general importance and should be considered by those responsible.

On the order itself, I do not think it is necessary for me to add very much to what has been so very lucidly stated by the hon. Baronet. I only desire to make a number of brief points on the order. In the first place, it seems to me that the explanatory note is not as informative as it should be. The point of substance on this order is the transfer of authority in this matter from the local authorities who, as it has been explained, are subject to appeal to summary courts of jurisdiction, to the Minister without any appeal at all. Although trained lawyers reading the explanatory note would appreciate immediately that that was the effect, to the layman I think the explanatory note is not very clear on this point of substance. It does not make it clear that the effect of this order is to hand control over these people's livelihood to the decision of the Minister from whom no appeal whatsoever is possible. It seems to me that, with the best will in the world, the explanatory note does not deal sufficiently clearly with that point from the point of view not of lawyers but of intelligent laymen.

Thirdly, I confess that on principle, article 5 (1) seems to call for comment. It says:

"The provisions of this Order are subject to any directions which may at any time be given by or on behalf of the Minister and to any licence or authorisation which may be granted under this Order by or on behalf of the Minister."

As I understand it, it comes to this. Under the delegated powers granted to the Minister, he has made this order which is subject to limited review in this House, but he is taking under this order further powers to ignore the order and to act differently from it without those further powers being subject to scrutiny in this House. It seems to me quite wrong, first of all to lay down in this proper form what he proposes to do, and then to provide a loop hole under which he frees himself to take other and possibly inconsistent action.

Another point is this. It seems to me that this is a matter on which the views of the representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations should have been given greater weight. After all, they have been concerned directly with responsibility for administering the provisions of Section 57 of the 1938 Act for ten years. They have got very considerable practical experience of the matter; yet it appears from the Ministry's own explanatory memorandum submitted to the Select Committee and printed with the Select Committee's Report, that their views have been disregarded by the Minister.

There is one other aspect of the matter. In the explanatory memorandum submitted to the Select Committee this rather unusual statement is made in paragraph 9:

"The licensing arrangements under this Order will be such that any decision not to issue a licence to the occupier of an existing knacker's yard or to an applicant for a licence for any new yard and any decision to revoke a licence issued under the Order will rest personally with the Minister of Food."

If that is the intention, it seems to me that the Minister of Food should have been in his place this afternoon to answer this Motion. If I may say so, I think the Parliamentary Secretary is probably a more effective debater than her right hon. Friend, and the right hon. Gentleman himself seems to take that view, judging by the frequency with which he delegates the function of replying in this House to the Parliamentary Secretary. In general, the House accepts that view, but on a matter in which it has been expressly stated that the personal discretion of the right hon. Gentleman himself is going to be exercised, I think it is very unfortunate that he has not come to this House this afternoon to explain how he proposes to exercise that personal discretion which he expressly reserves to himself under this memorandum.

I entirely support what the hon. Baronet has said as to our intentions not in any way to interfere with the Ministry's control of a serious and delicate matter. I fully appreciate the difficulty of their problems, but the fact that those problems exist is no reason for this House blindly to acquiesce in every proposal that the Ministry makes for dealing with them. Where, as here, we see a valuable right—the right of appeal—taken away, and, according to the explanatory memorandum, apparently taken away purely for technical reasons which could be overcome by adopting another procedure, then I submit that we are entitled and, indeed under a duty to protest. After all, these licences are a matter of economic life and death to the people concerned. If a licence is revoked it means absolute ruin for the individual concerned. That that is so has been recognised by this House in the statute to which reference has already been made in providing for the right of appeal.

It having been made quite clear by the hon. Baronet that every reasonable objective which the Ministry seeks to obtain can be obtained by the alternative procedure which he has suggested, but without depriving these individuals of this safeguard, I think we are entitled to press the hon. Lady to reconsider this matter and to see whether her objectives cannot be attained without the risk of inflicting injustice upon even a very small section of the community.

This is not a party matter, and I hope it will not be treated as such. It has not been treated as a party matter by either the mover or the seconder of the Motion, and I hope it will not be treated as a party matter by anybody in any quarter of the House. This matter affects the consciences of all Members of the House in the discharge of their duties with regard to the Executive.

There are occasions when hon. Members opposite move Prayers, as they are perfectly entitled to do, for purely partisan purposes because they object to certain Statutory Instruments put forward by His Majesty's Ministers, and on all previous occasions when such a Prayer has been moved, I have always supported the Government and opposed the Prayer. In my view, however, this is not one of those cases. I think it is evident from what has been said that this Prayer has been moved as a result of the Report made by the scrutiny Committee.

I desire to remind the House that that scrutiny Committee was appointed by this House for the purpose of exercising the duty of vigilance on the exercise by Ministers of delegated legislation. The scrutiny Committee is representative of all parties in the House, and there is a majority of Labour Members on it. It is because, when this particular order came before the scrutiny Committee, protests were made on all sides at what appeared to be an abuse of the Ministerial power to legislate by Statutory Instrument that the matter was reported to this House.

It is perfectly right, therefore, that the House should now consider the matter on its merits. When I say "on its merits" I am not concerned at the moment with whether the objective sought by this order is good or bad. I think it is a perfectly good objective. The question is whether this is the right way to do it or whether we shall not be parting with one of the proper, cherished privileges of the House of Commons in regard to its relations with the Executive.

The matter arose in this way. This House has had to consider the law with regard to knackers' yards for a very long time and hitherto it has been thought a proper matter for the attention of Parliament. Parliament was concerned about the appropriate method of licensing knackers' yards in the year 1786, when an Act of Parliament was passed; at that time the House was not concerned with securing that matters of hygiene were observed but that there was adequate police supervision. The powers of licensing knackers' yards, it was thought, could properly be left to local justices; that was in the days before the local authorities existed.

The matter was again dealt with by legislation in 1844 and subsequently in 1847. It then found its place in the Public Health Acts of 1875 and 1890. The subject was again reviewed by Parliament as recently as 1938 in the Food and Drugs Act which contains at the moment the express will of Parliament as to how knackers' yards throughout the country should be licensed. Parliament, in its wisdom, has sought to leave the matter to the control and discretion of local authorities, subject to an appeal to the courts. If there is any doubt whether there has been any failure on the part of local authorities to discharge the function given to them by Parliament or whether there has been any attempt to evade the licensing system laid down by Parliament, it is only necessary to remind hon. Mem- bers of the reply given in this House as recently as 25th November when, in answer to a Question put by an hon. Member opposite asking the Minister of Health what steps had been taken to ensure that every knacker's yard was licensed by the local authority concerned, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said:

"I have no reason to think that the Food and Drugs Act is not being enforced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948: Vol. 458, c. 132.]

Thus the Minister of Health, who is the responsible Minister in this matter, to whom the functions devolve from Parliament, is perfectly satisfied at the moment with the proper administration of the Food and Drugs Act.

It is perfectly true that since the passing of that Act the Bodinnar Committee has been appointed to consider the subject of knackers' yards and their supervision and that the Bodinnar Committee has made certain recommendations. If the matter were properly presented to this House by a Bill, I am sure this House would desire to implement the recommendations of that Committee. I am sure that the House would then wish to consider very seriously whether the final discretion of licensing a knacker's yard should be left to the Minister or whether the traditional right of appeal to the courts, which has existed for over 150 years, should be abolished.

The object, as I understand it, of this Prayer, and certainly my object in supporting it, is to draw the attention of the House and the country to the fact that this seems to be an attempt to exercise legislative authority through delegated legislation which is an abuse of the powers which have been devolved on the Minister for certain purposes. In my view the scrutiny Committee has properly reported, because this is a totally unexpected and a totally unjustifiable exercise of Ministerial power by delegated legislation. May I indicate to the House what the effect would be if this kind of thing were allowed to pass unchallenged in this House?

We are dealing today with knackers' yards. Hitherto everybody who has wanted to open a knacker's yard has had to obtain his licence from the local authority and has had a right of appeal. In future no one will be able to run a knacker's yard unless he has a licence from the Minister of Food; that is to say, a new direct interference with the freedom of the subject to run that particular kind of business is being introduced by a Statutory Instrument. If that can be done by this order of the Ministry of Food, it will be equally competent for the Minister of Food tomorrow to issue an order saying, for example, that no one shall have a licensed premises without his personal sanction. At the present time the owners of licensed houses follow the well-known procedure of making application to the licensing justices, with the procedure of appeal, and so on.

There are various other matters which are licensed by local authorities in accordance with proper plans discussed in Parliament and laid down in Acts of Parliament. If this kind of thing can be introduced by Statutory Instrument it would be equally competent—it might be a very good thing; I am not arguing the merits of it—for a Minister of the Crown to say tomorrow that nobody may open or conduct a public house without the consent of the Ministry of Food. I mention that analogy because I think it is clear that there is a limit beyond which Ministers ought not to exercise powers given under the Defence Regulations, even though they are technically entitled to do so.

For those reasons, and in the interests of Parliamentary justice, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food ought to reconsider this matter before opposing this Prayer today. I do not think it is merely a Departmental matter. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has been consulted. I know he has many other preoccupations. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General has been consulted about the desirability of doing this kind of thing. I know he happens to be abroad representing the interests of the British Government at The Hague. I do not know whether it has been put before the Lord President of the Council, the Leader of the House. But I do sincerely and certainly think that this order raises a matter of considerable constitutional importance, and therefore I urge the representative of the Ministry of Food to reconsider this matter today before asking the House to resist this Prayer.

May I start by assuring the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) that I shall not speak on this subject on party lines. I intend merely to say a few words from the point of view of one of those who unfortunately have sometimes to make use of a knacker's yard. I make no objection to the order as a whole. Any steps that can be taken by the Ministry of Food to stop black market or illegal operations would have my wholehearted support, but I view with concern the dictatorial powers sought in this order.

I entirely endorse what was said by the hon. Member for East Islington. I think in this case it should be possible to challenge the decision, if necessary. First of all, the decision as to whether a knacker's yard was necessary or not should be made by the local authority. They are the people who best know the needs of the district. They know whether an extra knacker's yard is necessary or not, and I think their recommendations should have prior consideration. It is entirely wrong that the Ministry of Food should take it upon themselves to make this decision, against any decision of the local authority.

I support what is contained in the order in connection with humane slaughtering. We all agree that humane slaughtering should be adopted to the very fullest extent, and I do not agree that there should be too rigid a limitation on the number of slaughterhouses, because it is necessary, in many cases, that one should be able to get to a knacker's yard quite quickly in order to prevent suffering by the animal. It would also avoid the loss of what might he turned to use if taken to the knacker's yard quickly.

Therefore, I suggest to the hon. Lady that she should accept the views put forward very clearly by my hon. Friends on this side of the House and supported by the hon. Member for East Islington, that the Ministry of Food should reconsider the decision and hold up the order pending reconsideration, and bring in a fresh order omitting what is objectionable in this one. I think that the power the Ministry has taken upon itself to enforce any conditions is much too drastic, and that should be looked into. In the memorandum sent out by the Ministry it is stated that the order is made lest the arrangements should be protracted or their completion should not eventually be secured. I can see no reason why they should be protracted or why their completion should not eventually be secured.

I make no apology for taking part in this Debate. Ordinarily I should have expected to be in Newcastle at this time, but, fortunately or otherwise, the Whips told me yesterday that we were to discuss this order today, and asked me to be so kind as to stay in the House. Being a loyal member of the Labour Party I thought I would do so, and I am quite surprised to find such a great number of people here today. But this is an important question.

The order has been made, and what we have to do is to determine whether it is justified. While there may be some weaknesses in the order itself, the point has been raised that it institutes some new principle and debars opportunity for appeal. I had expected before coming here that there would be something more than that in the case against the order. I did not know what a knacker's yard was. I made inquiry, and was told that a knacker's yard is simply a place where old horses that can scarcely walk and whose bones rattle are taken to be destroyed. I thought that I had better look into the matter. I did so, and I came to the conclusion, after reading some of the evidence, that there was some urgency about it. I looked up the previous discussion on this subject in the House on 28th October. Hon. Members opposite had developed the point that there was urgency for doing something about the matter and I think that the Minister is putting this order into force on the ground that it is urgently necessary.

Is there any urgency? Let me quote some of the things said by the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) on 28th October in the Adjournment Debate. He drew attention to

"the alarming position arising in this country at the present time owing to the ever-increasing slaughter for food of young horses."

He went on to say that if the public knew about this

"they would rise in their wrath and demand that action be taken to stop it."

He said further:

"A horse…was fetching in the region of£50 whereas it should now be in the region of£20.… The vast majority of this meat is, of course, sold in the black market—I should say 80 per cent."

Indeed, he went further, and said:

"I would say that from 80 to 90 per cent. is sold in the black market.…The majority of it is destined for human consumption.…The truth is that this trade is now in the hands of a small number of men who are making very large profits.…They have their own slaughterhouses.…Apparently anybody can obtain a licence.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 378, 382]

He also said that a horse could be slaughtered and skinned and cut up all in 20 minutes, thus making the task of catching people engaged in the trade very difficult. Does that not indicate that the position is such as to call for stringent regulation? The Ministry of Food believes that this is urgent. I thought that the Conservative Party recognised this urgency. The question the Minister had to ask himself was, "How can I speed the matter up? How can I obtain authority to deal with this urgent case?"

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? He suggests that the Ministry regards this as a matter of the utmost urgency. Let me point out by reference to the order itself, that it was made on 25th October and does not come into force until 19th December. It does not look from the timing of the order as though it were a matter to be dealt with in the most urgent way.

It was the way to do the job, I suppose. There ought to be at least some form of appeal. As a layman I take it that the Minister calculated the matter in this way—that if he did not put this order into force the job would not be done with the right speed, and that if he left the matter to the local authorities it might not be treated as a matter of urgency and that nothing would be done, or. at any rate, nothing would be done quickly enough. Therefore, the order provides that a licence from the Minister must be obtained.

There may be a reasoned case to support the need for an appeal, but I am with the Minister on this because of that urgency which has been called for from both sides of the House. The form in which this order has been made will ensure speed of action. If experience shows a necessity to amend the order on the lines suggested to allow some form of appeal, that can be dealt with later. The need at the moment is for speed of action, which this order secures.

What had the Bodinnar Committee to say when they investigated this very problem? That sensible and reasonable committee of investigation, knowing all the factors involved, accepted the view that the number of knackers' yards should be fewer. To their surprise, however, they found on investigation that instead of the number of knacker's yard, and the problem has had increased 100 per cent.—from 200 to 400. The question arises: How has that happened? Was it because of the weaknesses which then existed? It does not really need to be argued. The mere fact that it happened indicates that there was some weakness. It has been too easy to get a licence to carry on a knacker's yard, and the problem has been aggravated by the conditions in which we live, with the scarcity of food. Advantage has been taken of this laxity in licensing, so creating the "black market," which in turn causes friction throughout the country. A large body of opinion against "black marketeering," not only in meat but in many other things, has grown in the country.

Investigation of the problem shows the need for speedy and determined action, and that is why this order has been introduced. If ever a case was developed and supported by evidence, it was that put forward by the Bodinnar Committee. Then the Minister of Food had to consider the question in conjunction with the Minister of Health, and they came to the conclusion that this order was the only means of achieving speedy action in developing machinery for supervision, and for testing whether the existing knackers' yards were sufficient to fulfil the proper needs of the country for this kind of food.

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?

No. I want to go on with my speech. Because of the laxity in licensing, a "black market" has developed, and is becoming stronger every day. Both sides of the House want action taken to deal with that problem. Yet when an order is made to achieve that speed of action, we have this opposition to the order. To me that is ridiculous. Let us test the order by experience. Even accepting the order as it is, with all its stringency, I cannot imagine that the Ministry of Food will refuse to licence knackers' yards where the need for them exists. If in future it can be shown from experience that this order operates unfairly the matter can again be raised, and perhaps an amendment made.

Taking all these factors into consideration, I believe the order to be worth while. It is something we want, and something we can commend. When an effort is made to deal with what is universally recognised as an evil, let us not decry speedy and effective means to deal with it. Let us wait awhile to see if there are any weaknesses in the order. The problem is admittedly important, and I deprecate this attempt to annul an order designed to deal with it. I hope that when Government officials, not only in the Ministry of Food but in other Ministries, discover abuses they will take action similar to this. If they do so, if they tackle the problem in earnest, even if there are weaknesses in their instrument of attack, they can rest assured that hon. Members, on this side of the House at least, will give them wholehearted support.

First, let me say that I sincerely regret the absence of the Minister of Food. I do not mean to cast any aspersion on the Parliamentary Secretary, who. I am sure is most efficient, conscientious and painstaking at her job and at dealing with Prayers from time to time, but the absence of the Minister produces a feeling of unreality in the Debate. Supposing all hon. Members agree that this order is not at all acceptable, it will be extremely difficult for the hon. Lady to say: "I will look into it further," or "I will withdraw it," and then go to the Minister—who, I am told is at this moment in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster—and say: "So astonishing and convincing was the Debate that I have decided to make substantial concessions." If the Minister is not engaged elsewhere on more important work, he should be sitting on the Government Front Bench answering the arguments adduced when the House is considering an order of this importance.

The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) made a most genuine and earnest speech. He obviously believed in what he was saying. It is not because his arguments and mine are in agreement that I say so, but I felt he was speaking according to his convictions, and, unlike the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), not speaking to a brief. I am sorry to say that not a single word uttered by the hon. Member for Wallsend weighed with me, because he began his speech by saying: "I have been asked by my party Whip to come down here. I was told to make a speech." Before that he did not even know what the order was; indeed, he did not know what a knacker's yard was. That shows that the hon. Member did not read the order so as to make up his own mind of his own free will whether he was in favour of the Prayer or not. He carried out the instructions of the party Whip. I presume that if he had decided that the order was not good, he would have been in the unfortunate position of saying that he was not going to carry out his Chief Whip's instructions. I am sorry to have to say it, but I say honestly that it would have been very much better from the point of view of his own Minister if the hon. Member had not spoken at all.

I do not want to make this subject into a party matter. I hope that hon. Members opposite will support the mover and seconder of the Prayer. I do not intend to put forward the argument, on which we on this side of the House feel strongly, about further controls and restrictions, abuses of licensing and favouritism which occur from time to time. The matter resolves itself into the one question whether this power should be left in the hands of local authorities or be taken over by the Minister. I agree with one of my hon. Friends who said that this is a matter which should be left to the discretion and action of local authorities, who know local conditions.

How can a Ministry overburdened with work in London possibly know the local conditions that exist in outlying places where somebody wishes to open a knacker's yard or to have one licensed. If local authorities are slow, surely the Minister can get on to them and tell them to proceed with greater quickness in regard to knackers' yards. This is not a matter for centralisation. It should remain decentralised and if the Minister is not satisfied that local authorities are carrying out their job properly, he should ginger them up.

I do not know whether or not there is any means under the Act of 1938 by which an appeal can be granted. I have been informed that there is that possibility, but we want to have it in the order. If it is necessary to introduce amending legislation, I can assure the Minister that we should be in complete agreement with it. I sincerely appeal to the Minister to recognise the arguments which have been put forward on both sides of the House and seriously to consider whether for once the Ministry can show a degree of reasonableness by their approach to what is obviously desired by the majority of Members.

When the mover of the Prayer opened his speech, he said that he wanted the House to realise fully that he and the seconder and their supporters were only too anxious to eradicate the evil of black marketing from knackers' yards. Then he approached the whole problem by arguing in legalistic fashion. I think the House will agree that it was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) to point out that this was a human problem and that immediate action must be taken if we are to restrict the racketeers who engage in this immoral trade.

Now I must remind the House of the Bodinnar Committee's Report. We asked Sir John Bodinnar to examine reports which had been made to us concerning the consumption of certain foodstuffs which had by-passed the controlled channels. In order to do this, Sir John realised that he had to examine the licensing and control of knackers' yards. He discovered that the knackers' yards had increased in number from 200 to 400, and that although one might expect that meat would be required during wartime from knackers' yards for feeding pets, one would not have expected that increase in view of the general shortage of meat, even horse meat. In fact, one would have expected a decrease, in view of the fact that certain low-grade cattle which had been killed in knackers' yards in pre-war days were being killed in slaughterhouses. Sir John investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that it was very necessary for the Ministry of Food to exercise some control over knackers' yards. There was no doubt that meat was going into knackers' yards and was being sold at more than controlled prices and was being dispersed illegally for human consumption.

This is an important point, which all hon. Members who have spoken have failed to grasp, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) who traced the history of knackers' yards. I agree with him that Act after Act has been passed to control knackers' yards. He will remember that they were looked upon before the war as places where aged horses were taken and destroyed and the meat was generally used for feeding pets. Now the position has changed. We find knackers' yards being used as a source of food for human consumption. I want the hon. Gentleman to realise that that is why we come into the picture and why the House has given us power under Defence Regulation 55 to control all food industries concerned with the production and distribution of food.

Hon. Members have never for one moment dissented from the view that we should exercise our powers to the full, they have never come to me and said that if a butcher misbehaves himself the Ministry should not revoke his licence, and that the butcher should have an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. Hon. Members know that, in the public interest, the butcher must be dealt with forthwith. Now we come to the House and say that we have found that a new industry in procuring food for human consumption is being carried on in knackers' yards. We say that that matter is very much a concern of the Ministry of Food and that it is essential that we should exercise control. With all due respect to the scrutiny Committee, I would say that they did not fully appreciate that position. In examining the order they wondered why the Ministry of Food were encroaching on the preserves of other Departments. They thought that we were acting in an arbitraty fashion. They said, and some hon. Members have repeated the argument: "This is quite unjust. In the past, a knacker who was refused a licence has been able to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. Now the Ministry of Food come along and say that they will decide whether or not the licence shall be revoked."

I want to emphasise to the House that the position has altered because now we are dealing with meat which is being handled by the knacker improperly and used for human consumption. Therefore, we decided to take action and we consulted with the Department of Health for Scotland and the Ministry of Health, but having regard to Section 57 of the Food and Drugs Act, which the hon. Member rightly quoted, it was decided that the Ministry of Food should have further powers. The hon. Member will see that the powers under Section 57 are very limited. The Section empowers a local authority to license a slaughterhouse. Provided the slaughterhouse is in the proper spot and conducted in a decent fashion, the local authority has no power to refuse a licence, but there are no powers under Section 57 to enable the local authority to insist upon records being kept. Hon. Members will agree that it is of vital importance that records should be kept.

Is not that provided for under Section 58?

I am coming to that. Hon. Members will agree that we cannot possibly trace the ancient horses and cows which are going into the knackers' yards unless we have records, and in the past records have not been kept. Section 58 of the Act gives local authorities power to make by-laws requiring records to be kept. That power has been in existence for many years. It is a permissive power and not obligatory. I have examined the position today and I find that only 15 out of over 400 local authorities which have licensed knackers' yards have exercised that power. Hon. Members will recognise that we cannot exer- cise the kind of control we want unless records are kept, and yet only 15 out of over 400 authorities have exercised the power to have records kept.

Surely that applies only to cases where the knackers have refused to keep records?

The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) gives me my case. He says that only 15 out of 400 have kept records and therefore 385 knackers have refused to keep records.

No.

Surely if these people are dealing with food which is being used for human consumption, our Department, as the guardian of the people's food, should come along and say to these unscrupulous men—I say, these black-hearted black marketeers—who are prepared to make profits——

The hon. Lady is twisting my interruption, though, I am sure, not intentionally. Surely in the other cases they have agreed voluntarily and there has been no need for compulsory powers to force them to keep records?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman really ought to learn his case. He must know that powers which can be exercised by local authorities can be permissive or obligatory. These powers are permissive. Fifteen local authorities have exercised those powers, but we have no power to compel them to exercise them. It is time we came along and insisted on these records being kept, and that is what we are seeking to do here.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor)—I always treat his legal views with respect—asked why we did not amend the Food and Drugs Act. I have just pointed out to him the size of the problem. There are a great many local authorities involved, and we want compulsory powers. So far only 15 have shown that they are prepared to persuade knackers to keep records. The hon. Member will agree that the Act could not be amended under a few months. He asked why if we were in such a hurry, we had delayed the operation of the Order. The answer is that we have delayed it for a couple of months in order to give the knackers an opportunity to make application for licences in order that we shall be quite fair to all the knackers operating now.

If it is thought that there is not this urgency, I would like to bring the House back to the problem we are discussing. I would remind hon. Members of the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) raised in this House the other day. In that case a man made potted head brawn and pressed beef and sold his products—infected products, by the way—in some 24 neighbouring towns. Our inspectors visited his premises on a routine inquiry. The premises where the manufacture took place and the meat store were filthy. The chief veterinary officer and meat inspector were called in and about half a ton of meat and some manufactured products were seized. The meat, mostly beef with some horseflesh, was condemned. The examination of some utensils, particularly a household bath, showed the presence of the bacilli of dysentery and other diseases. Seven and a half cwt. of the meat seized proved to have come from the knackers yards of John Holt Ltd.

This is the problem with which we are dealing. This is the measure of the urgency. Before I came out I asked my secretary to collect some other cases for me. In one case a butcher was found in possession of diseased meat obtained from a knacker's yard. In another, a firm, owning both a knacker's yard and a butcher's shop were transferring meat from the yard to the shop for sale for human consumption. A person was buying dressed knacker's meat from the knacker and disposing of it to butchers. Another one was disposing of knacker's meat which was unstained, and so on.

Is the hon. Lady suggesting that in those manifestly serious cases she has no powers under existing legislation?

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that no records have ever been kept except by the knackers in the area of 15 authorities.

They ought to have been prosecuted.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley raised this question, the House was very alarmed. The House was full at Question Time. It was then that I said that we were going to make the order. I explained to the House that these people had been prosecuted under the Food and Drugs Act and had been fined something like£2,000, but our powers are not extensive enough to catch them in the early stages because we have no records of the meat which is going into the yards.

As regards the suggestion that the order may constitute unusual use of the powers that we have hitherto exercised by reason of Defence Regulation 55, I would re-emphasise that the position has changed. Here is a new enterprise which is being regarded by many unscrupulous men as a food enterprise. That is why we decided to exercise our powers under Regulation 55.

I am asked why these people are no longer allowed to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. For exactly the same reason as all these other people we control do not appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. They are being treated in exactly the same way as any others engaged in food enterprises, and they will be treated as fairly as other people who offend against our orders. In this case our Meat and Livestock Division in the first place will consider an application for the licence. When it comes to a question of revoking, the complaints made will be carefully considered by my Department, and finally my right hon. Friend will either revoke the licence or agree to allow the man to have another chance.

I feel that, since I have explained to the House what is our purpose, hon. Members will appreciate that probably they have not fully understood the purpose of this order and I hope, therefore, that the House will resist the Prayer.

The hon. Lady has not given us a satisfactory answer, although I am grateful for the care she has taken to express it. She began by saying that this was a human problem but that I had dealt with it in a legalistic manner. Surely our business in Parliament is to legislate in a proper way to deal with human problems? Therefore, I do not think she should reject what I said as merely legalistic. Indeed, I had the most powerful support from her side of the House from the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) in a speech that put the matter in proper perspective.

If the hon. Lady has been 100 per cent. right in the facts she has presented to the House, she has made out a good case for the Amendment of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. What she has been doing is to make a fierce attack upon the local authorities. Therefore, I would hesitate to accept all the facts she has presented, or to believe that all the local authorities except 15 have been unwilling to assist, and have, indeed, been obstructing the efforts of her Ministry.

My case was that the proper course, if the Ministry are dissatisfied with the way in which the Act is being administered, or if they are of opinion—as apparently they are according to the memorandum which they presented to the Select Committee—that the local authorities have not sufficient powers under the 1938 Act, is to amend that Act. The hon. Lady suggested that it would take too long, yet since the beginning of this Session the Government have put forward all sorts of little Bills, many of a non-controversial character, to correct anomalies. This might have been one of them, and it would probably have been through by now.

It really is not fair for the hon. Lady to attack the local authorities when the Minister of Health, in reply to a recent Question, expressed himself as entirely satisfied with their administration of the Food and Drugs Act. There must be a conflict of opinion between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Food on this, and I am sorry she did not deal with the point. The suggestion all through has been that time is of the essence, and that was the one argument put forward against an attempt to deal with the matter by amending the 1938 Act.

I should be quite agreeable if this order were to be treated as a purely temporary order, which would remain in force only until the appropriate amendment was introduced to the 1938 Act, provided that an amending Bill was introduced forthwith. Then I could agree that this order should remain in force for that temporary period, but we have had no such assurance, and the hon. Lady promised nothing about amending the 1938 Act. Meanwhile this order has been tacked on, providing concurrent administration, the Ministry of Food and the local authorities both having jurisdiction in this matter. That is a most unsatisfactory and extraordinary position.

The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) said, "Let us give the order a trial," but this is the last day upon which it is possible to pray in this House against the order. Therefore, when today is past, this House will no longer have any control, and if we consider later on that the order is working unsatisfactorily, this House will have no remedy. That is a point which, on some other occasion, I should like to pursue further. It is, at any rate, a complete answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend.

I regret that the hon. Lady has given us no satisfaction. She really only repeated what was in the memorandum which was before the Select Committee upon Statutory Instruments, after careful study of which they reported to this House that the order made an unexpected use of powers. In those circumstances I am afraid we cannot accept as satisfactory the reply of the hon. Lady.

I want to raise the subject of a rather complicated and difficult industry. I do so entirely as a layman who does not understand one end of a radio set or a television set from another and has not the slightest conception of how they are put together or the means of doing so. I raise this subject of the television industry because I believe that potentially it will be one of the most important and valuable industries existing either in this country or in the United States of America. Whatever we may think of the social merits or demerits of the ownership of television sets in the home, it cannot be doubted that at some point there will be as many television sets in the world as there are motor cars today. The instrument has been invented, it is in use, it is bound to be developed and to become available to many hundreds, if not to say millions of people.

When there is a new industry of such a type in process of development, it is extremely important from our point of view to see that we give such an industry every possible chance so that it may compete in the world's markets for the capture of a great proportion of the trade that is undoubtedly coming to this industry. This is particularly important from our point of view because, after 1952, we shall have to depend more and more upon the skill of our craftsmen and technicians to capture new export markets and to develop new industries.

I do not think it would be disputed that primarily in such an industry the overspill from the home market is always the factor which operates to an extensive degree in the export market. In order to have a good export trade, it is necessary to have a good home market, so as to expand from that basis. In the United States of America millions of pounds have been spent since the end of the war on the development of television sets, television stations, the improvement of reception, and so on. At least one company, the Radio Corporation of America, has spent 100 million dollars on these things since the end of the war. That is a measure of the earnestness with which the American industry regards this particular new development.

In Britain we are far behind the Americans from the point of view of quantity of output and expenditure on the industry. Whereas in America there are some 39 television stations in operation, in Britain today there is only one. It is quite true, of course, that America needs more television stations than we do in this country. Nevertheless, we have not yet produced our second station. It is due to open in Birmingham next year, either in the late summer or the early autumn. We have not yet developed our plans for producing a station for Scotland, the West of England and the North of England, which it is proposed to base on Manchester. The Americans are pressing forward much faster than we are in this particular field. We have only some 85,000 television viewers as against some 700,000 in America. Our output of sets is something like 10 or 12 times fewer than that of America. We are producing, roughly, 70,000 or 80,000 sets a year, whereas America is producing nearly 750,000. But, by and large, the British set compares quite well with the American set of approximately equivalent price. Indeed, the pictures seen on the British screen are probably slightly better and of slightly higher quality.

What I want from the Government this afternoon is something in the nature of an exploratory inquiry rather than a statement of facts. On my part I find it a puzzling industry, and it is difficult to get any concerted information from those concerned in it as to what line should be pursued. I want the Government to say what they are doing about promoting research and the export of British sets and transmitters. As far as I am able to find out, much depends in exports on the type of transmitter used by foreign countries. I heard a complaint today to the effect that the British Government have not been exceptionally wise or helpful over the attempt by the British industry at the recent exhibition in Copenhagen to persuade the Danes that our 405-line system was sufficiently good to be worth developing, and on it to base a transmitter which they would purchase from this country. After the engineers had nearly succeeded in tying up all the details, the British Government then let it be known that they were allowing a station in Hamburg to experiment with 625 lines, and to develop in that direction. That at once made the Danes think that it would be no use pursuing the 405-line system developed by us.

There seem to be two main disputes as to the type of transmitter to be generally adopted. One has to do with the type of definition, the number of lines employed in projecting the picture on to the screen. For some time ahead, we have chosen to stabilise the 405-line system which is a lower definition than that at present used in America. They use a 525-line system. From what I am told, there is not a lot of difference between the two systems at the moment. The real difference comes when the 800-line system is used, and when, perhaps, colour is added to the process. That is a point with which I shall deal in a moment.

I am informed that, even supposing a transmitter were sold to the Continent which depended primarily on the use of 405-line sets, if it became possible later on to produce a British set with higher definition, it would, nevertheless, be possible to keep the old set in use. Some apparatus can be fitted to the transmitter to adapt the picture so that it can be received by either the higher or the lower definition set. I am also told that the question of which system of definition is generally accepted is not so vital or so serious to the industry as the question of what system of modulation is adopted. Apparently, the Americans use what is called a "negative modulation" in the projection of their television programmes, and we use what is called a "positive modulation."

The technical details of all this are completely beyond me, but I am told that negative modulation does something which is called "peaking on white" and that positive modulation does something which is called "peaking on black." Whether or not one is better than the other, I do not know. The industry itself cannot agree upon it, but the important point is that if the negative modulation is adopted, it is much more difficult to make the adaptation of the sets based on positive modulation than it is if it is merely a change from one kind of definition to another, because the whole set has to be recast.

It is rumoured in the industry that it has been agreed, more or less, to accede to the American desire to plug the negative modulation and to give up the British plugging of the positive modulation. if that is so, it is a very serious thing for the industry because it means that they will have to gear their work to produce an American-type set for export, and it would then not be possible to base the export market on an overspill from the home market. It would be a pity if this proposition were accepted, and I hope the Government will be able to tell us that they have not accepted it, and that they propose to continue to try to popularise our own system abroad, and to persuade other countries to develop along these lines. But if this adverse decision has been made, I think that our first necessity in the next few years will be to concentrate on research rather than, as at present, on the production of sets so as to counteract such an eventuality.

Let us assume that such a decision has not been made. In that case, we have one definite advantage over the Americans at the moment. They have spent so much money on developing their present type of set and their present system of transmission that, if they suddenly produced a new system of definition, all the money spent on the original development would, to some extent, be wasted, and they could not recoup their losses. For once in a way, being a little behindhand in the matter may help us, and we may develop along the lines of the best system.

The first thing I want to suggest to the Government is that they should examine whether it is possible for the industry to make transmitters available to other countries, particularly to the Dominions, either at cut-rates or on a subsidised basis which would enable them to be given away for nothing. If that were done, it would mean that the countries which used British transmitters would tend to look towards Britain for the supply of sets to be operated in conjunction with those transmitters. I hope the Government will seriously consider that, because I believe that the trade which would follow would be very considerable, particularly if it were made a condition that, say, for a period of five or 10 years the country concerned would not put any tariffs specifically against the imports of sets from this country.

I am told that one of the difficulties which face the television industry today is that because of the present restricted size of the home market, to say nothing of the export market, all these developments and researches into new processes are highly expensive and not necessarily likely to result in a profit to the individual firm which undertakes them. It is asking a lot of a comparatively small firm to spend a high proportion of money and the time of technicians on a particular line of development if they are not to be assured of getting their money back in the end. I should like the Government to say what they propose to do particularly through the National Research Development Council, which is to be set up to assist inventions and new developments in industry, for the television industry, in order to help in the very necessary research in regard to colour processes and higher definition processes.

This particularly applies to another industry, the film industry because, as the House was told yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade, new processes are being developed in the film industry which means, in simple terms, that by using a television camera one is able greatly to reduce the cost of making a film. Once the process has reached the right level, one is able, so to speak, to take it off the back of the television camera and put it on the screen without the expenses of rushes and so forth. I know this question is interesting the Board of Trade and also the company of which the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is a director. They are very properly interesting themselves in it and trying to develop these processes.

I hope the hon. Member is not suggesting that the company in question are asking for any money for these processes. They are carrying them out entirely on their own.

I completely accept that and I know it to be the case. With a great measure of public spirit the company is attempting to develop these processes, but the noble Lord will appreciate that the originators of these processes are also interested in getting their inventions further developed. But, when they approach a firm, the firm will say, "This is an interesting order but, unfortunately, we are full up with orders and very short of technicians and we do not know how big a market there will be for this sort of equipment. We do not feel inclined to risk the money involved on research in order to bring the instruments up to the high standard necessary and you will have to wait a long time before we are able to do so." I want the Government to assist in the development of this type of research in order that it may be possible more quickly to allow this equipment to be available to the film industry as a whole so that the costs of film production may be reduced as early as possible. There is also a great export trade involved, because the independent frames can be exported to other countries and so add to our export revenue.

Another difficulty from which television in this country is suffering today is the restricted studio space at Alexandra Palace. That is giving tremendous difficulty in raising the quality of pro- grammes. It is time that someone in this House complimented the technicians at Alexandra Palace on the good work they have been doing since the war and the high quality of programmes they have been producing. They have been foremost in many of these developments, but I am assured that it is difficult for them to continue their output of programmes and impossible to expand their present output in their restricted space. They have only two little studios there in which they produce a programme of about 28 hours a week, which is equivalent to several full length films a week. That is becoming increasingly difficult in so small a space. One of their difficulties is their inability to get more manpower to build more studios and more material with which to build them. I should like to know what the Government intend to do in that respect. Assistance in that direction would have an enormous effect on the industry as a whole, because the higher the standard of the programmes the higher would be the psychological effect on foreign buyers who come to study our processes.

An important matter which has been raised is the difficulty the television industry are experiencing in getting the required amount of cathode rays tubes to put into sets. I think present output runs at 140,000 tubes a year, which means, with the replacements needed for existing sets that for the production of new sets not more than 120,000 a year is available. Although the glass is available the plant required to step up the production to the amount required by the industry is extremely expensive and people concerned with making these tubes are not putting in the plant because they fear that in four or five years' time there may be a new development, making their new plant unnecessary and this type of cathode ray tube redundant. It is very important that we should get the television industry working all out at the moment and I want to know what the Government are prepared to do in the way of subsidising this new plant, or guaranteeing against loss through new developments.

I should also like to know what the Government are doing in the way of helping this industry in its research and development and in reducing the price of sets, which is a very important factor, to something about the£25 mark which is. I believe, considered a reasonable possibility in the industry and would certainly mean a tremendous increase in popularity, not only in this country, but abroad, from the point of view of the export trade. I wish to urge on the Government not to take the defeatist line in regard to the United States of America because I believe that our technicians are sufficiently skilled to do better in most respects than those in the United States at the moment. They will be discouraged if they find that the Government as a whole, are, for any reason whatever, conceding the issue to the Americans and are not backing them throughout the world in the sale of British transmitters, which may be followed by the sale of British sets.

Like the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) I am no expert in this matter, but I rise because I desire to say that in an otherwise well-informed and admirable speech the hon. Member allowed himself to make one or two observations which somewhat frightened me. I hope that the Government will look askance at those particular suggestions. They were to the effect that the Government should step in and subsidise the production of transmitters in order to ensure that overseas countries were enabled to take the kind of transmissions which we in this country are at present producing by the 405-line system. The hon. Member rather deplored the fact that we had failed to make headway with the Danes in the way of inducing them to accept equipment of the same kind, and also that there was in existence a rather newer German station operating on an increased number of lines.

Finally, the hon. Member said that he wished to see certain firms manufacturing cathode ray tubes subsidised by the Government against loss. I regard that as a most dangerous procedure. It means, in effect, giving to these firms every kind of encouragement to go on producing a type of apparatus in vogue at the moment but which, in five or 10 years' time, by the normal interplay of competition, will experience a reduced demand because of the successful work of other competing firms. I hope, on the contrary, that the Government's hand will not be heavy on this whole matter of production of types of transmitters, and that we shall not standardise a new industry in any way but give the utmost encouragement to all new firms entering in the industry to plan their own research—I agree that the Government should positively aid research in these new industries—so that technique can be advanced over the whole field.

I am sure that we are all obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) for bringing this subject forward this afternoon. I often wonder, when I hear my hon. Friend, whether it is a prelude to an article in the "New Statesman and Nation" or the other way round. This time it is the other way round. The raising of this subject has been valuable because it will help somewhat to counterbalance the rather pernicious and I think ill-advised propaganda which is growing up to the effect that expenditure on television is at the expense of the ordinary radio listener, and should, therefore, be discouraged. That is unsound and will do considerable harm to the industry.

One of the most important of the sales factors in television, both inside and outside this country, is that the quality of the programmes should be maintained and improved. If my hon. Friend had had a television set, I think that he would have spent a little more time in paying tribute to the absolute marvels in production which are achieved by the production engineers at Alexandra Palace, and the way in which, particularly in recent months, they have combined the use of the film with outside "shots." An admirable example of that was in the magnificent production of "Nurse Cavell," in which they combined the technique of the outside "shot" with the inside "shot" without the change being noticed. The general quality of that type of production is an extremely important aspect of their work. The appropriate Ministry, and the people at the B.B.C. who are in charge, would do well to continue on the lines which they are pursuing of constantly trying to improve the quality, and of giving greater aid and freedom to the excellent people who are responsible for production.

I am not trying to tell the House that the whole of the programmes are fine. I believe that they are making a mistake in trying to fill far too much programme time, and that they would be much wiser if, instead of putting on second-rate and third-rate cheap films as "filling" in the afternoon, they cut them out entirely and went back to the pre-war practice, when sound was broadcast from Alexandra Palace during the daytime and the transmission of pictures was closed down for long periods. I do not know whether there is any system of research into the actual number of viewers, but I very much doubt whether the number of viewers really justifies television transmission in the afternoon.

I am sorry that there is such a thin House this afternoon when we are discussing this important subject, because it is a case which statesmen and would-be statesmen have to face in the future. I can quite well see that in about 10 years' time, if not before, instead of the country being treated to the sight of eminent gentlemen hiding their faces behind a sound microphone it will be treated to the picture of budding Prime Ministers and leading figures coming before the televisor. I know that it sounds an airy sort of fancy, but I am quite certain that when we get the mass production which the hon. Member for Aston visualises, the political parties will have to put their leading figures before the television camera. That is a pretty awful prospect. A moment ago I visualised my own Front Bench and some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite in that position, and the Lord forbid that the photogenic test should have to be applied to them.

I wish to express my gratitude to the B.B.C. for the magnificent work they are doing in the matter of television, and what criticisms I have seen fit to make I hope will be helpful.

The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) has performed a signally useful service in raising this subject. I do not think that we can have heard many speeches which began with such a modest disclaimer of any technical knowledge of the industry and which was followed by such an erudite exposition of knowledge of the main facets of the industry.

I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) that it is probably not a good idea to subsidise the manufacturing side of the industry. But nevertheless this is an infant industry, and an industry in which, before the war, Britain had a complete lead over all other possible competitors. There is a disquieting fear that we are beginning to lose that lead; that our research is not going ahead as it ought; that the building of transmission stations is not going ahead as it ought. The fact is, of course, that the industry, as an industry, cannot go ahead unless the Government take some action first. That is the important point. It is not a question of finance; it is a question of how can the industry progress unless the Government themselves take the lead in the matter. I am always delighted when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply is replying, but I think that the Postmaster-General's Department should have been represented on the Front Bench this afternoon.

I wish to say a word about Scotland. I have raised this matter at every possible opportunity before. We in Scotland feel rather strongly that many modern industries have by-passed Scotland. Until after the second world war that undoubtedly was true of the radio industry itself. It is inevitably true of the television industry, so long as there is no possibility either of television transmission or research in Scotland. At the moment the people in the Midlands are waiting patiently for the establishment of a transmitter in Birmingham. There is no suggestion at the moment as to when a transmission station in Scotland will be built and put into action. People in Scotland are deeply concerned about this, because we do want our share of this industry.

I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will recognise that Scotland has a special claim for many reasons. It has the claim of a former distressed area to some measure of any industry which could be distributed by Government action. It has a special claim, as it was a Scotsman who invented the television system. The work of Baird of Helensburgh was a most important factor in giving Britain its lead over other countries in the years before the war. I express the hope that, if not today, then at some time in the near future, we shall learn that the Government are going ahead with the vital work of research and development and with the building of further transmission stations.

In common with other hon. Members, I feel we are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) for drawing the attention of the House and the public to this important subject. It would be difficult to exaggerate the immense possibilities of television. In America immense strides have been made in producing television sets during the last year or two. As my hon. Friend said, and as I think the fact is, there are now something like 800,000 television sets in daily use in the United States. I am informed that they are being produced at the rate of 100,000 a month and that they are being sold at the same rate.

The demand is even greater than the supply. In America that means that in due course supply will catch up with demand. It will not be a matter of many years before a television set is a normal part of the household equipment of an American home. There is no reason why, if we take the appropriate steps in this country with Government assistance in research, equally rapid progress should not be made here, to enable our manufacturers to develop television sets both for our population and for export markets. The possibilities are unlimited.

It is difficult to foresee what effect television will have either on cinematograph films in theatres or on any existing forms of domestic entertainment. It also has a profound effect on advertising. Those who use the television medium for advertising purposes in America have found that by using one-fifth of the time on the television screen which they used to use on the ordinary wireless, they obtain better commercial results. It is a question for the future whether or not we shall ever admit television to be used as an advertising medium in this country. I am profoundly thankful that so far we have kept advertising off B.B.C. broadcasts. Nor is it far-fetched, as the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) seemed to suggest, to think that one day television may be a recognised political weapon or that it may be necessary, if not desirable, for political leaders to make use of television. In fact, both the Democratic and the Republican Conventions in the United States this summer were televised with great success—at any rate from a technical point of view.

Attention has been drawn to what is the most important feature of this problem at the moment. I refer to the question of the type of system or line-definition that is to be used. As the hon. Member for Aston said, in America they use a 525-line definition. Here we use the 405-line definition. Hitherto, it has been thought that it would be of doubtful commercial value to use a much higher definition. I hope the Government will give the greatest incentive to research and development and that we shall be able to capture export markets. I am not sure that the loss of the Danish market is, in the long run, very important, because before we do embark upon large-scale manufacture of television sets it is most important for us to decide what is the best, the most technically efficient and the most economical system to use.

In this context, the most revolutionary development has occurred during the last two or three days. The French Government announced the other day that they propose to make their standard television 819 lines, and friends of mine who have just returned from Paris, where they went for the express purpose of seeing a demonstration of the 819 lines transmitter, have told me that the quality was startlingly better than anything they had ever seen before.

I am sure that our industrialists in this country will follow that up immediately, because it looks as if it will be better to adopt a much higher line definition television system in the future than the one to which the American industry is already committed. The results are infinitely better, and, given large-scale manufacturing, the costs are not substantially higher. Therefore, it would seem that in view of the French experiments in this technique we may be making a mistake if we concentrate too long on the low-definition system transmitter.

I am sure that hon. Members will realise that the system of transmission also governs the type of receiving sets which are used, with this difference, as I understand it: If in France, for example, they have an 819-line system, they would be able, subject to the difficulties of distance to pick up transmissions sent out over a lower definition system such as the 405-line system or 525-line system. They would, therefore, be able, if the distances were right, to pick up transmissions from this country. On the other hand, with a 405-line receiving set it is not possible to pick up transmissions from a higher line transmitter. This difficulty may, of course, in time be overcome by technical methods. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aston said, it may not in the long run be a drawback if we are a year or two behind the Americans in our efforts in this important new industry, but I do think that it is of the greatest importance that the Government should give every facility for encouraging this industry at the present stage.

The other feature of the subject which is vitally important has also been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston, and that is the necessity to secure the closest co-operation between the cinematograph industry and the B.B.C. We all agree that the station at Alexandra Palace has produced highly satisfactory results under conditions of very great difficulty—cramped space and so forth—and I hope that it will be possible for the Postmaster-General to arrange for the B.B.C. to have additional studio facilities so that they can embark upon television programmes with greater ease and with the kind of conditions that obtain in the United States.

It is most satisfactory that the deadlock between the film industry and the B.B.C. has now been broken. Within the last few days an agreement has been announced whereby a number of films, up to about 30, are to be made available for transmission over the B.B.C. system. It is particularly noteworthy that the films which are being selected for public transmission are not only to be feature films, but that a certain number of them are to be documentary films. In return for that, the B.B.C. have agreed that a limited number of cinemas, six in all, will be wired for receiving television, in order that the public in those selected six cinemas will be able to enjoy on the screen the ordinary, current B.B.C. tele- vision programmes. I am convinced that it is only by the closest co-operation, both in research and development. between the film industry and the B.B.C. that we in this country shall be able to make the strides in developing this important new industry which we ought to make.

I want to join in the compliments which have been paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on the able way in which he has raised this subject. He differs from many hon. Members of this House in that we often have the privilege of reading his speeches before instead of after we hear them. On this occasion I think his speech has suffered nothing in the speaking and that he developed his case with considerable skill.

Before going any further, might I refer to a remark which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister)? The Postmaster-General would, of course, have been here this afternoon had he not been detained elsewhere and, as some criticism of him was made in that respect, I want to tell the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Aston specifically informed us that he would talk principally about the production side of this industry rather than what I might call its distribution side, which is the responsibility of the Postmaster-General. That is why I am replying to the Debate instead of my right hon. Friend. He will, of course, have his attention drawn to some of the very pertinent points which have been made during the course of this Debate and which fall within the field of his responsibility.

I also want to deal with one other small point, which was not germane to the general argument, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen raised. That is the question of Scotland. He seems to think that it is within our power, quite apart from setting up transmission stations in Scotland, in some way to establish a large branch of the television production industry in that country. Of course, that is not practical politics at all. This is an industry which is growing out of the established electrical industry and we have to make use of the industry as it exists to get the work done. Whatever may be the Government's policy in connection with the establishment of industry in Scotland, this particular point cannot be taken in isolation from the remainder of it.

I fully accept that, but my hon. Friend would, of course, agree that the manufacture of television sets in the London area arises from the fact that Alexandra Palace is there and is transmitting, and that Scotland will not be able to have a television manufacturing industry until at least one transmission station is established?

Precisely. When Scottish transmission stations are opened at some time in the future, no doubt that opportunity will arise. Nothing, however, can be done from the production point of view, at the moment, to solve that problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aston spoke first of the importance of this industry and I fully agree with him. So do the Government. The potential which we have in the television industry is almost unlimited. He quoted unfavourably to us, as did other hon. Members, the American production figures. It is quite true that American production figures are impressive at the moment. It is also true that there is very general agreement that in the quality of reception we are in no way behind the Americans. In fact, I am inclined to think that we are probably ahead of them, and that without regard to any technical argument that may exist about the differing qualities of the 405 or 525-line definition. By virtue of the exceedingly skilful work on the part of the B.B.C., and of the manufacturing qualities of the electrical industry in this country, we are up to the Americans in quality, though, of course, they are substantially ahead of us in production.

However, the question to which we have to address ourselves is, whether we are doing the best that can be done in the circumstances as they exist. My hon. Friend pointed out, quite rightly, that one of the principal limitations on television production at the present moment is the shortage of cathode ray tubes. The difficulty arises not from any particular shortage of glass. Obviously, the volume of glass used is very small. It arises from the shortage of capacity for the blowing and the pressing of the bulbs from which the finished cathode ray tubes are made. That capacity is being and has been considerably expanded in recent months. The Government have also recognised the particular importance of this in granting import licences to allow a limited number of both bulbs and finished tubes to be imported from overseas. The figures are obviously at the moment not very large, but it is a fact that some 60,000 to 70,000 bulbs and some 40,000 to 50,000 tubes are likely to be imported into this country in the year running from about this autumn to the autumn of 1949. The fact remains that we have to step up our own production of these tubes very considerably, and we are, indeed, in the process of doing so.

The question of the introduction of the automatic pressing machine, to which my hon. Friend referred, is not quite as he put it. In fact, we have no reason to suppose that the industry is deterred from investing its capital in this direction at the moment because of fears of taxation penalties or anything of that kind. The truth is that we have in this country at the present moment such a machine, but to put it into production a very expensive relaying of production lines, and of training in new techniques, and so on, would be required, which would not be justified until the stage is reached when the demand becomes sufficiently great to absorb the whole or practically the whole of the output of such a machine. When we examine the output figures for automatic machines of this kind we find they are astronomical, and there is no doubt that one such machine could provide the whole requirements of the country.

There have been certain commercial difficulties in recent months over the production of these tubes—difficulties, that is to say, not directly related to lack of capacity, but which arise out of the way that that capacity has been used. My Department has recently taken the initiative in providing the industry with a solution of these problems, which the industry has accepted. The effect of that acceptance is likely to be that in about a year's time there will be cathode ray tubes which are sufficient for the pro- duction of up to 300,000 receiver sets in the course of a year. That is a very high figure, and almost certainly as much as we can expect to get in the immediate future.

I ought, however, in fairness to warn the House that if we do find we can get production up to 300,000 sets as regards cathode ray tubes there may be certain other limiting factors which will come into play at that stage. For instance, the television receiver industry uses a large quantity of plywood, and if they contemplated stepping up production to the level of 300,000 a year we might have difficulty in getting them a sufficient quantity of timber to make that possible, because, as hon. Members realise, that timber has to be imported. But we have in mind plans to overcome that difficulty. I have little doubt that the ultimate solution is the substitution of plastic materials for plywood. Well, that is not as easy as it looks; it cannot be done overnight; it requires a great deal of retooling, and one thing and another, and the industry is not at the moment ready to make that change. I sound that note of warning in order that hon. Members should not surmise that because we have succeeded in breaking the cathode ray bottleneck there will be no further limitations on production, because I think there may be.

As regards the production of transmitters and the export market in general. I want to assure the House that the industry is fully alive to the necessity for staking its claim in the export market as widely as it possibly can at the moment, while it holds a certain advantage, and by using every legitimate commercial device in order to make certain of securing those markets. I must exercise a certain discretion at this point of my speech, because obviously these are matters of commercial negotiation between individual firms in this country and firms or Governments overseas. I can assure the House, however, that negotiations which are going on at the moment, and which are within my knowledge, are quite sufficient to prove to me that no suggestion which has been made on those lines this afternoon is not very fully in the minds of the people running this industry, and I do not think that hon. Members need be uneasy about that.

Nor do I think that there is any necessity at the moment for the Government to step in and offer any special subsidy, or anything of that kind, to meet this particular need. I need hardly say, of course, that if in the course of such negotiations a particular firm in this country found itself handicapped by the import licensing policy of a foreign Government, then the Export Promotion Department of the Board of Trade would naturally do everything it could to help them get over the difficulty.

The next major point made by my hon. Friend was the question of subsidising research. It is not very often that I find myself in agreement on economics with the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), but this afternoon I am bound to say that I had far more sympathy with what he said on that subject than with what my hon. Friend said. We must preserve a sense of proportion in talking about Government financial subsidies in a matter of this kind. There is nothing the Government can undertake in the way of research now which does not mean robbing some research effort which is going on somewhere else. That is the first important consideration. The second is that it is just because it is of vital importance that prices in this industry must come down. and because it is at the present moment a private industry which is working within a limited geographical range in highly competitive conditions, that it is better to let the industry undertake—as it is quite prepared to do—its own research, in accordance with its own commercial judgment.

If we start subsidising wholly uneconomical research at the moment, one of the effects will certainly be to keep prices a good deal higher than they otherwise would be. That is not to say, of course, that the Government are not themselves conducting a good deal of basic research into radio and electronics, which has its bearing on the problems of this industry. This is, of course, being pressed ahead, for reasons which are not intimately concerned with the subject of this Debate, as hard as possible. But the more detailed commercial research, which applies particularly to commercial television, is something which is being undertaken by the industry, and can properly be so undertaken.

The two technical questions which my hon. Friend and others raised were those of the fineness or otherwise of the line definition and the negative or positive modulation. There has been a certain amount of misunderstanding on both those points. It is a fact that the British, that is to say the United Kingdom television service, are using at the moment the 405-line definition. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has already told the House that he proposes to accept that standard and to stabilise it at home for a certain definite period, certainly for a period of years, in order that people may have confidence to buy sets and know that the transmission will be on those lines for a period of time.

It does not follow that the industry is not pursuing very actively the question of raising the number of the line definition. It does not even follow that the industry cannot at the moment produce television equipment with a much higher line definition than what we are using at present. Once again I am in danger of trespassing on the field of commercial negotiations which are at present in progress, but I can say that the British industry, in parallel with manufacturing equipment which is being used on the United Kingdom television service, is now able not only to offer for sale but actually to produce 525-line definition, as well as line definitions substantially higher than that, if they were required. So far as my information goes, we cannot yet reach the very high figure which France has just announced, namely, that it is about to use 819. If that is so, I think they are temporarily ahead of us on this subject.

I am bound, however, to advise the House, without prejudice to other matters, that one does sometimes notice that announcements from France about technical achievements of this kind are not followed immediately by production and that they are sometimes made at a comparatively early stage of the research. It should be said, therefore, that we may not be entitled to read into that announcement all that my hon. Friend did read into it.

On the question of negative versus positive modulation, the scientific and technical experts are divided in their views, as on many other technical and scientific problems. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the system we use in this country is positive, and that which is used in the United States is negative. The view of the Post Office is that we are using the better method of the two, and that we should stick to it. Nor have I any reason to suppose that the Postmaster-General's view is not going to prevail. I do not believe that we are in danger of capitulating to the American technique in this matter. Indeed, if our system is satisfactory, why should we? The same set cannot be used to receive both programmes. If we believe that we are on the better line of development, the advantage is just as likely to be with us as it is with the Americans. We should be far better advised to pursue it.

I think I have covered most of the points which have been raised this afternoon. I would emphasise that there is no question either of the Government or of the radio industry being defeatist in this matter. This is a private industry and one which is competitive, vigorous and active. It is going ahead as fast as it can to conquer this new territory. The Government can help in a variety of ways. It can help, in the first place, by clearing away as quickly as possible the industrial and production bottlenecks which all too frequently arise in present conditions.

One of the ways in which the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston. as spoken, differed from its form as written was that he did not refer this afternoon to the shortage of materials, notably steel. I assure the House that while nobody can avoid an occasional hold-up of one kind or another arising from shortage of materials at the present moment, by and large this industry has had what it wanted, and so far as it can be managed, it will continue to have what it wants. There is no ground at all for saying that its steel allocation has not been adequate to meet the reasonable demands which ought to be made on it. That is one way in which we can most decidedly help. We are also helping by giving the greatest possible facilities for special imports of one kind or another for research, development and so on That we have done, and will continue to do. I do not, however, think that we should be asked to subsidise the industry. and I, and, I am sure, most hon. Members, would require a very great deal of convincing that that was a wise course to follow.

I believe I have covered the ground which my hon. Friend wanted me to cover, and in conclusion I would say that the Government have the greatest hopes that the next 10 or 15 years will prove to the world that this industry really is as important as we think it is now and that the British industry is quite capable of going out and exploiting the great opportunities which it undoubtedly will have.