Commons Sitting of 24 April 1964

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

LIVERPOOL, SCOTLAND (BY-ELECTION)
11.5 a.m.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could seek your guidance. I apologise in advance for not having given you any warning beforehand that I would raise this matter, but until the event took place I had no opportunity to do so.
I want to ask you about a procedural matter arising from a question that I asked the Leader of the House yesterday. I then asked about the issue of a Writ for the outstanding by-election in the Scotland Division of Liverpool. After that I made various researches and found that for a borough the earliest possible date would have been Friday, today, and I came here this morning expecting that a Motion for the issue of a Writ would be moved. I could not approach you, Mr. Speaker, until I found that this, apparently, was not the case.
I should, therefore, like your guidance on whether I was right in thinking that today would be an appropriate day for that to have been done and, if this is so, what would be the next day next week when, if nothing happens from other sources, some of my hon. Friends and I might consider how to apply the necessary stimulant ourselves.
Mr. Speaker: It is fortunate for the hon. Member that he did not have an opportunity to consult me, or else I should have warned him that his activities might be thought to be an abuse of our proceedings.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  11.7 a.m.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I am moving the Third Reading of this Bill largely because I believe that we must do everything possible to promote safety on our roads. I should like to say briefly what the Bill does. Clause 1 (1) amends Section 13 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962. The power of "the appropriate Minister"—that is, my right lion. Friend the Minister of Transport in England and Wales and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—under Section 13 is widened to include power to make an order imposing a temporary upper speed limit in two cases—
  "(a) in respect of roads of any class specified in the order"
  and
  "(b) in respect of all roads other than roads of any class so specified."
  For the purpose of such an order, roads may be classified by reference to any circumstance appearing appropriate to the Minister concerned to be suitable for the purpose—for example, including their particular character, the nature of the traffic to which they are suited or the traffic signs thereon. The power to impose a minimum speed limit on specified roads is not affected.
  Also, under the Bill Section 13 of the 1932 Act is made to apply to an order made under Clause 1 as it applies in relation to a speed limit to be observed on all roads. That is to say, traffic signs will not be necessary. I think we all remember during the summer months seeing the police one day uncovering these traffic signs and on another day covering them up, which is largely a waste of time. They will not be necessary.
  Clause 1 also is to be construed as one with Section 13 of the 1962 Act. That is, it will not confer a power to impose a temporary or experimental speed limit on special roads, for which there is a special power of regulation in Section 37 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. This deals with our motorways which are

  1695
  gradually increasing in mileage throughout the country. The Bill also contains some normal provisions as to the commencement and extent.
  My reason for sponsoring the Bill, to put it a little more clearly in layman's language, is that the Minister can impose a general speed limit without providing traffic signs. But the effectiveness of any speed limit depends very largely upon securing the willing compliance of the majority of drivers. Experience shows that such compliance is best obtained when drivers feel that the speed limit, whatever it may be, is justified and appropriate for the conditions in which it is imposed.
  The general speed limit as envisaged under the 1962 Act applies to a great variety of roads, to winding lanes classified as C roads and to recently built class A roads almost up to motorway standards. It is impossible to select one overall speed limit which could be appropriate for them all. With the idea of settling on a limit not to be exceeded on ordinary roads, the Minister last year decided that, in practice, it should be 50 m.p.h. The trouble is that this is too restricted for roads of good modern design like dual carriageway clearways. The object of the Bill is to enable the Minister either to exempt these better roads from the overall blanket limit or to impose upon them a speed limit higher than that which he applies to the B and C roads. It might be, say, 60 or 70 m.p.h.
  How did the 50 m.p.h. speed limit work in practice? Last August, during the holiday rush period and at weekends, a 50 m.p.h. overall speed limit on all roads other than motorways was imposed. According to my researches, there was an effort by the general body of motorists to observe this on the very first weekend. But what did they find in practice? After having been, perhaps, on a country road behind a lorry or coach travelling at 30 or 40 m.p.h., they came on to a dual carriageway and the lorry or coach speeded up to 45 or 48 m.p.h.
  Mr. H. HyndSixty.
  Sir H. Harrison: Perhaps more—but I am assuming that the lorry driver or coach driver was obeying the law as laid down then.
  1696
  The private motorist, in a faster car, could see the dual carriageway perfectly clear ahead, yet he would he breaking the law if he went at 55 m.p.h. to pass the heavier vehicle. Therefore, the blocks of traffic did not clear themselves when they reached the dual carriageway. By the third or fourth weekend, motorists came to the conclusion that this was rather nonsense on dual carriageways and, when three or four started to go past at 60 m.p.h., everyone else thought, "Why should I observe the law when others seem to get away with it?". In the end, we did not get the benefit in safety from this provision in the 1962 Act for which we had hoped. This is why I have chosen to introduce and recommend the Bill to the House.
  As there will be no traffic signs, it is essential that the class of roads excepted for special treatment should be immediately recognisable. This is why I have drawn Clause 1(1) in the form in which it appears. For the present, the ways in which such roads might be classified are these: dual carriageway roads, clearways which are indicated by the clearway sign and, in the future—the not too distant future, I hope—the primary routes which will be indicated by green direction signs.
  I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport here today. I am sorry that he has not with him his colleague from the Scottish Office because the Bill applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales, but, perhaps, as my hon. Friend sits for a Scottish constituency, he thinks that he is acting in a dual capacity both as a Minister of the Crown responsible for transport and as a private Member from Scotland.
  In recommending the Bill to the House, I wish to draw attention to what has happened to it so far. It is often said that private Members have very little scope or power against the Front Benches. Nevertheless, it is sometimes possible, with willing help, to get Bills through. The progress of this Bill has been remarkable. It will be remembered that it was only on 19th March that I presented it, exactly five weeks and one day ago. Since then, it has had its Second Reading and Committee stage. What is more remarkable is that, by accident, good luck or whatever it may be, it has become the first Bill

  1697
  to be called today, so that we have the opportunity to debate it thoroughly on Third Reading.
  I have some confidence that the Bill will be given a Third Reading today, because I have had no opposition to it in arty part of the House nor have I encountered opposition to it from any of the motoring associations and societies. In fact, they are all in favour of it. Therefore, if the Bill is given a Third Reading today and it passes promptly through another place. I hope that it will receive the Royal Assent some time early in June and become law early in July. This will be in time for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport for England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make appropriate orders to deal with the August weekends and holiday rush period for which the original powers were wanted in the 1962 Act.
  I believe that the Bill will make a small but sensible contribution to the solution of the problem on our roads. It will be of real help to drivers. When we had a debate on road safety, about two months ago, it came out quite clearly that the attitude and behaviour of the driver himself is the most important factor on the roads. If he does not think that the law is wise and sensible, he will disregard it. Plainly, motorists felt that a blanket speed limit of 50 m.p.h. was not sensible on different roads with quite different characteristics. With that in mind, and with the idea of enlisting the willing cooperation of drivers, I recommend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. H. Hynd: The hon. Gentleman has spoken more than once about the willing compliance of drivers, and I fully agree with him about that, but what about the willing compliance of the local authorities who represent the public? Will it be possible under the Bill for the Minister to impose regulations on roads under the control of local authorities without the consent of the local authorities?
  Sir H. Harrison: I do not want to get too involved in matters about which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be very much better informed. Perhaps he may catch the eye of the Chair and assist the House in due
  1698
  course. As I understand it, the Bill will apply to a I roads to which the 1962 Act applied, that is to say, all roads in respect of which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have power to make orders.
  I was speaking about the value of willing compliance on the part of motor drivers, and I was about to remark, also, that there are not sufficient police for all these purposes. When the 50 m.p.h. limit was disregarded at weekends last year, there were not enough police to enforce it. Perhaps we have not sufficient police to enforce the road regulations, but, in any event, we must as far as possible ensure that the regulations are wise and sensible.
  If the Bill does nothing else but save a few lives or losses of limb, it will be thoroughly worth while. I recommend it to the House with this very much in mind. We back benchers can play a part in introducing small Measures of this kind to improve safety on the roads. Everyone concerned with road safety knows that there is no one solution and that a number of small measures can help. I should like to thank hon. Members for their great help and forbearance at earlier, stages of the Bill, which I thoroughly recommend to the House.
  11.20 a.m.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I should like to be the first to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) on introducing the Bill. I strongly agree with him that one of the difficulties about Parliament is that people think that back bench Members can do noting. His Bill is a notable example of how a Private Member's Bill can, I hope, have a rapid passage.
  Undoubtedly, speed is one of the factors, although by no means the only factor, leading to road accidents. We hear successive Ministers of Transport saying that they cannot do this or that because they have not the power. Far from the power being withheld from them, many hon. Members on both sides would be only too glad to give it to them. In 1959, I introduced a Bill called the Traffic Control (Temporary Provisions) Bill, under the Ten Minutes Rule, which was designed to give the Minister power to lay down regulations in the

  1699
  interests of road safety. After the figures of Easter road casualties were published in 1960, my hon. Friends urged a 50 mite an hour speed limit on the Minister which he subsequently accepted.
  Two points come to my mind on what my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) said about the position of local authorities. One is that usually local authorities are in favour of road speed limits because the people who live in their areas are those who suffer from the fast passage of traffic through them. We often find in villages in which the Minister has not imposed a speed limit women with prams and children having to run the gauntlet of traffic in crossing from one side of the village street to the other to do their shopping. I hope that the Minister will not allow local authorities to influence him too much in his decisions.
  The conception that a road is the special responsibility of the local authority in the area concerned is, in my opinion, obsolete. The road network is a matter of national policy. I hope that the Minister will use his powers with due regard to local opinion but that he will not be too greatly influenced by it if there are objections in any area to the imposition of speed limits.
  I turn to the point touched on by the hon. and gallant Member about policing. This is a separate problem which I should not be in order in raising in general on the Third Reading, but as the number of regulations rises in order to increase the safety of travel on the road the problem of policing becomes even more acute. The simple truth is that, in terms of road safety, Britain is terribly under-policed. Anyone who looks at the figures of the increase in the number of vehicles on the roads and then tries to discover—it is not an easy thing to discover—until the Police Bill, how many motor and motor cyclist police are available to various police authorities, will realise that the ratio of police to motorists is steadily diminishing over the years.
  I am in favour of legislation, if it is right, running ahead of the capacity for enforcement, because when legislation lays down certain conditions it is a very good thing that the public should know what the law is. There is also the self-policing element. People want to co-
  1700
  operate with the law as far as possible. The Bill draws attention to the urgent need for more motor police, and its provisions will be nullified unless much more urgent action is taken.
  Sir H. Harrison: The hon. Member is very clever in these matters. If the Minister does not move, perhaps he will be able to think of a way to deal with the matter through a Private Member's Bill.
  Mr. Benn: It is impossible under our constitution to propose increased expenditure. Even if I had a Bill in my pocket—I will not say that I have not—it would be ruled out of order, because one cannot suggest expenditure under one Bill on the Third Reading of another. But we are entitled, in discussing the Third Reading of a Bill, to consider what the effect of its provisions will be. In my opinion, the effect of the provisions of this Bill, which I wholly support, will be to underline again the fantastic neglect by the police authorities of their responsibility to ensure that there are adequate motor and motor cyclist police on the roads to enforce the law. I believe that the Ministry of Transport has some responsibility for this. No one would for a moment accept an air safety regulation which was not automatically policed, yet we pass a lot of regulations, and the policing aspect is dealt with as a separate issue and is not properly tackled.
  With that particular point in mind, I welcome the Bill. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on introducing it and hope that it will be passed into law.
  11.25 a.m.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: I join the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) on introducing the Bill and for his clear and concise explanation of its provisions. It is a road safety Measure, and any such Bill is worthy of support from both sides of the House.
  Hon. Members are often in difficulty when a Bill of this sort, small as it is, goes through on the, nod on Second Reading and in Committee. It is, therefore, a good thing that we should have an explanation of it during the fairly

  1701
  restricted stage of the Third Reading. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will underline one or two points which have been made and will, perhaps, say something about the points that I should like to raise.
  Under the Bill, the Minister will have power to except dual carriageways from temporary or experimental speed limits and to impose a different speed limit on them. This is a sensible and right step. As my hon. and gallant Friend emphasised, it is a good thing that we should be considering this matter now because there is a good chance that it will be the law of the country by mid-summer.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East that, on the whole, local authorities co-operate with Measures of this sort. I subscribe very much to what he said about the police and the need for further enforcement when laws of this type are introduced.
  As the House knows, I have a special interest in road safety, because three-and a-half years ago I was nearly killed in a road accident. I have had particular concern ever since for measures concerning the speed limits. I am one of those who firmly believe that speed kills, which is one of the most realistic slogans ever introduced on road safety. But a Bill of this sort will not necessarily make matters worse. In many ways, it will make a contribution to bringing about more realistic standards of driving.
  Like many others, I have for some time favoured some form of maximum speed limit on all roads. I believe that this could be between 50 and 60 miles an hour on most ordinary roads. However, I should get out of order if I went into that subject too fully. Failing that step, however, a Bill of this sort gives a certain amount of flexibility to the Minister of Transport in deciding appropriate maximum speeds on certain types of road.
  I notice from this morning's newspapers that the Minister is going to America for a further study of road conditions there. I hope very much that he will consider the speed limits on the roads in America in particular relation to a Bill of this sort. Perhaps later there may even be further amending legislation.
  One thing struck me when I examined Clause 1(2), which is to the effect that no signs indicating speed restrictions need
  1702
  be erected on the roads concerned. I am rather worried about this. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about it, because it does not necessarily encourage the road safety aspect. There is a national game among motorists known as breaking the speed limit. Amending Bills of this kind, while doing something to bring the scope of speed observance into line, will not necessarily deal with this aspect. We know that motorists break the speed limits with impunity.
  I always try to observe the speed limit when I am in my constituency, partly from the point of view of self-preservation—because it is embarrassingly bad to be convicted of speeding in one's own constituency—but also because I believe that hon. Members, of all people, should try to set an example when driving in particular areas. Unfortunately, however, one's good intentions are often not entirely on one's side. I find myself hooted at and glared at by people passing me in their cars and that people cut in front of me.
  It is difficult to stick to the speed limit, particularly on roads like the main road running through my constituency, the Great West Road, which is one of the most busy roads in the whole of the London area. It is positively dangerous to try to observe the 40 m.p.h. limit on sections of that road. People are constantly trying to overtake and one is put into some difficulty. In addition, many cars and lorries are frustrated by a general speed limit on roads like the Great West Road and the North Circular, which also runs through part of my constituency, and this frustration can be another road hazard.
  I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to confirm that roads like the Great West Road will come within the scope of the Bill. I should like him to make some comment about the need to enforce this type of speed limit on roads like that, because all too often one sees them used by motorists and lorry drivers as a sort of second-rate Goodwood or Silverstone circuit.
  Observance of speed limits may bring about a more realistic approach, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East that we must get more police or extra traffic patrols to enforce these

  1703
  regulations. Regulations are brought in from time to time, but tend to be ignored by too many motorists. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend's proposal last summer for a general 50 m.p.h. limit at weekends and holiday time did not work particularly well. As a result, the law was brought into some sort of disrepute.
  As a result of the Bill we may have a better chance of more observance of speed limits during weekends and national holidays in the summer. I understand that, starting at Whitsun and continuing through the summer, about 700 miles of selected trunk roads will have a 50 m.p.h. limit at weekends. It is right that these roads should be those with had accident records and hope that when these 700 miles come within the ken of the restriction, the restriction will be vigorously enforced, much more than was the case last summer.
  The Bill will benefit use of the roads, because in the past there have been objections that some roads built for fast traffic were safe at 60 m.p.h. while others were unsafe at 40 m.p.h. There ought to be some differentiation. General speed restrictions do very little to improve driving standards and I hope that the Minister will maintain this welcome flexibility. Perhaps we could well do with some derestriction on other roads, particularly after midnight. This is an argument which I hope to be able to develop on some other occasion and which does not really come within the scope of the Third Reading of this Bill.
  People should not be encouraged to adopt an impatient attitude towards speed limits. If they feel that speed regulations are fair, they will try to comply with them. I support the Bill and the remarks made about it by my hon. and gallant Friend and by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East.
  11.33 a.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: I support the Bill and I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) on presenting it to the House. I apologise that I was not present to hear his speech earlier this morning. I should like to say that traffic prevented me from getting here, but that would not be entirely accurate.
  1704
  I support my hon. and gallant Friend's reasons for believing it to be necessary to present the Bill—I may be putting into his mouth wards with which he would not agree, but I want at least to state my reasons for supporting it. The present speed restriction of 30 m.p.h. is dependent primarily, although not entirely, upon whether lamp posts in an area are 200 yards apart. Dependent on that somewhat irrelevant factor is decided the question of whether a 30 m.p.h. limit is to be imposed.
  Our motor manufacturers, to whom we ought to give a word of praise because they are doing so well in the export and other markets, are producing better and better cars for very reasonable prices. The ordinary family car—not just the expensive luxury car—is now capable of going at speeds which, a few years ago, were thought quite impossible. It would ill become me to mention any particular makes, or deal with their speeds. Hon. Members might think that I had some interest or was anxious to advertise a particular make far from it. It is sufficient to say that the modern family car is capable of going at speeds which an express train could well envy. Very often the driver is quite incapable of thinking and acting at the speed necessary when driving a vehicle so quickly.
  The vast majority of drivers drive well, carefully, and, on the whole, at reasonable speeds. Unfortunately, there are exceptions, and it is the exceptions which cause the unfortunate casualty rates of which we are all too well aware. Drivers often go at these speeds when they have been a little impatient at having been through a town with its 30 m.p.h. limit and its traffic blocks and then come to a stretch of road which is, or which they believe to be, derestricted.
  I speak with some feeling on this matter, because running through my constituency are both the Brighton and the Eastbourne roads, going through a large built-up area. It is sufficient to say that one part of the Brighton Road, in my constituency, is known as "Death Valley". The simple reason is that it is a fairly straight road, but very dangerous, because visibility is sometimes poor because of rises, and so on, and side roads come into it—it is true

  1705
  that there are white lines across them—and vehicles come out of those side roads and there are serious collisions. If the driver on the main road is going, as I have seen some go, at 70 or 75, or even 80 m.p.h. and there is a collision, whose fault it is does not matter. The collision will be extremely serious, almost certainly with fatal casualties. It is to stretches of road of this sort that, with the advice of local councils, the Minister will have to apply his mind.
  I shall not say a word today about general speed limits over the whole country or during holiday times because, apart from the fact that that would be out of order, it would be quite irrelevant to the purpose of the Bill. I regard the Bill as enabling local authorities to approach the Minister to ask him, "Just upon this exit from our town, just upon this road which, although it is not restricted, goes through a small village, please put a speed limit". This will give the Minister power to do so without a public inquiry and all the other present trouble and delay.
  I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—if we are to pass a law and take action under it, it is useless and a waste of our time and the Minister's time unless it is enforced. In these cases, the only people who can enforce the law are the police. I do not believe that we want special traffic police. The ordinary county police are quite capable of putting their trained officers in cars and doing their best to enforce the law. Once it is known locally that the law is enforced, it is more likely to be obeyed. So many motorists nowadays, perhaps wrongly, believe that if they ignore speed limits, there is not the slightest chance of anything happening to them.
  Mr. Philip N. Hocking: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the devilish electrical machines which the police are setting up and using on roads give them a better chance than ever before of dealing with speeding by motor-cycles and cars?
  Mr. Doughty: I would not call them devilish electric machines. They are machines which accurately record the
  1706
  speed of vehicles, but they are not often used. I think that the best way of enforcing these regulations is for the police to be in cars and to see what is going on, because very often excessive speeds are accompanied by bad driving.
  I have in mind the young man—and I regret to say on occasions the young woman—in one of these small, fast cars. I will not name any of them. These cars are capable of speeds of up to 100 m.p.h. Very often a young man driving one of these cars becomes impatient with what he regards as people dawdling along in front of him at 40 to 50 m.p.h. He changes into a lower gear, moves over to the wrong side of the road, and shoots away at a tremendous speed, counting on drivers coming in the opposite direction to ensure that there is no accident. If the police were able to catch a few people who did that sort of thing, I am sure that everybody in the country, and particularly the good drivers, would be grateful.
  This is a small but important Measure. I believe that it will contribute to safety by diminishing the number of road accidents which occur every year, without imposing undue or harsh restrictions on motorists. For that reason I hope that it will soon become the law of the land.
  11.42 a.m.
  Mr. George Darling:The Bill has so far had a remarkably easy and rapid passage. In fact, it has gone along so quickly that it has probably beaten the speed limit for Private Members' legislation of this kind.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) said that he hoped the Bill would be enacted before the holiday period. I should like to warn him that if all the Private Members' Bills before us go through as quickly as this one, we shall all be on our holidays before the Ministry of Transport has had an opportunity of putting them into operation.
  I agree that the hon. and gallant Gentleman deserves to be congratulated not only on introducing this useful Measure, but on guiding it along so that it did not run into the obstacles and difficulties which so often beset private Members' legislation, particularly at four o'clock on a Friday afternoon.

  1707
  As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, this is a modest Measure. There has been a certain amount of discussion on it—
  Sir H. Harrison: The hon. Gentleman is making a slight mistake. The Bill was presented formally, and, hitherto, there has been no talk on it whatsoever. I introduced another Bill, the Motor Vehicle Driving Establishments Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman could help me with that one I would be extremely grateful to him.
  Mr. Darling: I shall be glad to do so. I thoroughly agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech on that Bill.
  This is a useful Measure, because it clears away some of the anomalies in applying necessary speed limits to certain types of roads. I agree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith) that speed does kill. I have always been in favour of having different speed limits on different types of road, and even different speed limits on the same road, because of varying geographical and other conditions.
  I am thinking particularly of my constituency, which is correctly named Hillsborough. There are many hills in it, and, because of the lack of planning in the nineteenth century when these industrial areas were built up, many of the roads go straight up the hills, and straight down again. It is extremely dangerous to allow vehicles, and particularly heavy lorries, to go down a hill at 30 m.p.h., and many accidents could be avoided if everybody concerned recognised that in such circumstances a slower speed is essential.
  I, too, am worried about the question of clearly marking the roads on which one meets different speed limits so that drivers understand that in certain circumstances they must reduce speed.
  I think that the enforcement of regulations is essential. I disagree profoundly with the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) when he says that we do not need a corps of traffic police. I think that we need traffic police, not only to prevent accidents and to prevent people from going too fast and thereby getting into the state where they are likely to cause
  1708
  accidents, but to assist the flow of traffic. I know that those matters are outside the scope of the Bill, but I hope that we can come back to this question on another occasion; because, although the intentions of the Bill are admirable, unless the question of enforcement is properly dealt with, the good effects of the Bill will not be realised.
  I gather that the Ministry of Transport welcomes the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to clear up some of the points that have been put to him so that we can pass the Bill to another place and hope that there it will be given an equally speedy and accident-free passage.
  11.47 a.m.
  Mr. Philip N. Hocking: I join in the congratulations to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) on introducing the Bill.
  I think that it is well-known among hon. Members that I revel in driving a fast car. As I represent a constituency which has a definite interest in motor cars, and in their manufacture, I have, therefore, an interest in this Measure.
  My hon. and gallant Friend has done a great service to the motoring public by introducing the Bill, because for a long time I have felt that some of the restrictions put on motorists are unrealistic. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith) when he says that speed kills. Some weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) initiated a debate on road accidents, and produced a number of statistics which proved beyond doubt that speed was not necessarily the greatest factor in road accidents.
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Surely my hon. Friend would admit that speed kills to the extent that some people are incapable of quick reaction in an emergency? Some people are less capable than others of reacting quickly at high speed. Some people are not safe when driving at high speeds.
  Mr. HockingI take the point made by my hon. Friend, but I think that he will admit that those who drive fast are invariably much more capable drivers than those who drive slowly.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: The point is that they think that they are more capable.
  Mr. Hocking: I will not argue that at the moment. If hon. Members look at the statistics produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, they will appreciate the point that I have made.
  I believe that one of the contributory factors to accidents is frustration. Willy-nilly, a speed limit of 50 m.p.h. is to be imposed on 700 miles of trunk roads during the summer. On these roads there is often very little traffic during the weekends, between the hours of midnight on Saturday and eight o'clock on Sunday morning. It seems absurd that even during that period this limit should be enforced. People often feel frustrated when they are travelling along at that speed and the road is quite clear ahead, so that they could easily pass another vehicle but for the fact that if they did they would break the law.
  The Ministry of Transport must examine the problem of speed limits more carefully than it has done. It must be prepared to relax limits a little from time to time. The 30 m.p.h. limit imposed in the 1930s is not necessarily the correct limit for today. Motor vehicles have been improved considerably during these years. The braking power and general efficiency today are infinitely better than they were then. I suggest that the powers incorporated in this Measure should be used to conduct experiments to an ever-increasing extent so that we can arrive at speed limits which are realistic in present circumstances. If these experiments are carried out I am sure that we shall find that we are able to reduce the accident rate considerably while, at the same time, causing less frustration to motorists, who will be able to get about the country in a reasonable manner without too many unnecessary restrictions.
  Some hon. Members have claimed that we have not enough police on the roads to enforce these rules. In my opinion, the number of mechanical devices which are used today and are set up on various highways and by-ways to enforce speed limits have a far greater effect than a motor-cycle policeman or a police patrol car. In some cities there are notices which warn motorists that radar speed checks are in operation. I doubt whether these radar checks are in regular use,
  1710
  but I am certain that so long as the notices are there the knowledge that the police may be using these checks has a great effect upon the motoring public. I believe that the necessary machinery does exist to enable the enforcement of a Measure such as this, and that it can be used quite effectively.
  11.53 a.m.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Unlike the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), my constituency has only one hill. The problems which have been referred to today raise many wide issues, although this Third Reading debate must necessarily narrow the scope of our argument.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) raised some points which are extremely relevant to the debate. I join in congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) on introducing the Measure. He said that the road to Brighton runs through his constituency.
  Sir H. Harrison: I did not say that. It obviously does not do so.
  Dr. Glyn: I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend; I meant that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East said that the road to Brighton ran through his constituency. Any hon. Member who is familiar with that road will agree that very few of its 55 miles are derestricted. It should be a main artery, but it is chopped and cut about with various speed limits.
  My hon. and learned Friend also referred to young married couples who drive small vehicles. One of the greatest dangers arise from the fact that many people who have been accustomed to driving family saloons suddenly become the possessors of cars which are very much faster, and they do not adjust themselves to the greater speed of their new cars. Many cars today which are well within the purchasing power of the average family can travel at up to 100 m.p.h. This fact, together with the driving of the younger and more irresponsible motorists, is responsible for the high number of accidents that we have had.
  If the Bill receives a Third Reading it should be on the Statute Book by July. That means that my right hon.

  1711
  Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Transport should be able to introduce the regulations before the coming holiday. That is a great tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend. It means that in some measure he will have contributed, indirectly or even directly, to the reduction of accidents during the summer.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) raised the question of local authorities. What we have to consider is not so much what the Minister does as what local authorities do. This must of necessity be a partnership in which common sense prevails. We cannot have all the Departments working in watertight chambers, and saying "This must be done, or that must be done." Developments under the Bill must be negotiated between the Ministry of Transport and local authorities, so that a middle way can be found which does not cause bottlenecks to traffic but, at the same time, does not open the gate for further accidents.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith) mentioned the Great West Road. I entirely agree with him about that. As he says, it is a good road, and most motorists can go very close to the speed limit. Nevertheless, motorists driving at the limit prescribed invariably find themselves almost dawdling in a stream of traffic which is going very much faster.
  The Bill introduces changes, and we must, therefore, consider the question of enforcement. Many hon. Members have praised radar checks. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey. East said that he did not think that they could replace vehicles manned by policemen. I believe that we need a combination of the two. Radar checks economise in manpower and also deter people from exceeding the speed limit. The fact that a radar installation is in operation makes people more careful in their observation of speed limits. Nevertheless, the advantage of having a police officer in a car is that he is able not only to watch the speed of motorists but, far more important, the way in which they are driving their vehicles, whether above or below the speed limit.
  Sir H. Harrison: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about enforcement.
  1712
  The whole object of the Bill, however, is to reduce the need for enforcement. Certain roads will be exempt from the overall 50 m.p.h. speed limit.
  Dr. Glyn: I take my hon. and gallant Friend's point which really divides into two parts He says that certain roads will be exempt, but there will still be a speed limit of some sort in respect of them. They will still have to be patrolled. Both sides of the question require careful study. I believe that the Minister is striking the right balance between radar checks and various other devices, on the one hand, and police patrol cars, on the other. Whatever may be said about the use of radar and short-wave television, there is still much more effective control when police officers can see a vehicle being driven dangerously and are able to stop it. That is far better evidence in the court.
  Although we must, of course, consider the best way of saving lives, we must also consider very carefully the necessity for traffic to be able to travel at reasonable speeds along reasonable roads. This is the cause which my hon. and gallant Friend has had in mind in introducing his Bill. He allows increases in speed on roads where there is little danger of such increased speeds causing further accidents.
  The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that he agreed with the gradation of speed to 30, 40 and 50 m.p.h., but I think that on some roads this can be very confusing to motorists, as it varies from one area to another. I personally should like to see some universality of speed limits.
  Earlier in the debate it was said that speed itself was not a cause of accidents. Various opinions about this have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I think that the only observation that it would be proper to make at this stage would be that whatever the accident it is obvious that the higher speed at which it occurs the greater the casualties that must occur. I do not think that anyone would deny this. The basic factor is that the number of people handling these fast cars is increasing and this requires very careful watching.
  I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye for introducing the Bill. There are two points

  1713
  on which I should like the guidance of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I am slightly worried about the question of having no traffic signs on these stretches of road and as it is a point of some substance, perhaps my hon. Friend would refer to it.
  There is another point which I should like him to mention, if he has the figures available. I think that it would be of interest not only to the House but to the motoring public and, incidentally, to pedestrians to know exactly what effect the introduction of the 50 m.p.h. speed limit has had on the casualty figures over the stretches of road upon which it has been enforced. This is something which the public ought to know.
  Finally, I think that we have to be a little realistic about this. The motoring world has changed from the days when someone walked in front of the motor with a fed flag, and the question of speed and the whole attitude towards motoring is changing. The Bill is a welcome addition to existing legislation. But I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, when he conies back from America, perhaps in conjunction with the local authorities, will look at the whole question of traffic in towns to see whether in the future he might introduce some legislation which is slightly more comprehensive.
  I welcome my hon. and gallant Friend's Bill and I am sure that the House will be grateful to him for its introduction.
  12.3 p.m.
  Sir Ronald Russell: I intervene for a few moments to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary two questions. I should also like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) on introducing the Bill and upon the speed with which he is getting it through, and also for obtaining the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) who is very discriminating in the way that he supports Private Members' Bills.
  I wonder whether the Ministry would consider introducing different speed limits in opposite directions for some roads, particularly on steep hills. I am prompted to ask this because the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said that there were roads in his constituency
  1714
  which went up one side of a hill and down the other. I have some in my constituency, too, as anyone who goes there tomorrow week for the Cup Final may discover. I only hope that they do not try to park their cars on those hills, because they will probably find them driven away by the police during the match. There are hills there which it is dangerous to come down at 30 m.p.h. but which are perfectly sale to go up at 50 m.p.h. and I think that the time has come when we could possibly discriminate in that way, by imposing speed limits in opposite directions.
  Another example which I can think of in the General London area is Brockley Hill, on the A.5, north of Edgware, which it would be perfectly safe to go tip at 50 or possibly even 60 m.p.h. but very dangerous to come down at anything over 30 to 40 m.p.h.
  During the last General Election, I remember being asked by an enthusiastic road safety constituent whether I favoured a law to place speed governors on all cars, not made for export, which would limit them to 30 m.p.h. I promptly pointed out hat it would probably mean that cars would not be able to get up some of the hills in Wembley, if that were the case. One needs a car of great power to get up steep hills, and, therefore, I think that the time is coming when we should have different speed limits in opposite directions on hills of that kind. I hope that the Bill will receive a Third Reading and soon reach the Statute Book.
  12.6 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) on introducing the Bill, and it therefore may seem a little churlish of me to underline what I think is a very serious defect in it. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out
  "The effect of Clause 1(2) is that no signs indicating the speed restrictions need be erected on the roads concerned."
  I should like to know why not. After all, is not one of the assumptions behind the Bill that speed does kill?
  Hon. Members, one after another, on both sides of the House, agree that this is one of the main causes of fatal road accidents today, and that there is a flagrant disregard of speed limits. It

  1715
  is a national scandal. Some people refer to it as a sport—it is a wicked sport and that is why I use the word "scandal". If we think that it is right to give the Minister these flexible powers—and I most certainly do—it is monstrous that we should give him those powers and then not let the average motorist know when the Ministry will be using them.
  Why should a motorist be penalised for travelling above the speed limit, imposed by regulation by the Minister, when he does not even know that the speed limit has been introduced? It is a mockery almost, about the unwillingness to communicate our intentions to the public, that we here, as it were on the morrow of Shakespeare's birthday, who speak the tongue that he spoke, in the midst of his quater-centenary celebrations, should shrink from using the most powerful and vivid language which has been bestowed upon us.
  It is not only in this respect that one notices the reluctance to convey the wishes of the transport authority to the motoring public. It is almost endemic in us. Time and time again, we find a motorist having his car towed away because he is not supposed to park where he is, although there is no indication that parking is not allowed. Sometimes, one finds that there is a no parking sign, but Lord help the visiting tourist, who finds it difficult to discover on which side of the sign parking is not allowed.
  The Bill underlines what I believe to be a profound misconception, that somehow or other the motorist is expected to observe regulations without it being made quite clear to him what they are; and—this has been touched on by hon. Members on both sides of the House—without there being the proper enforcement in many instances. I do not wish to go into that aspect of it, because I know that it is not within the terms of the Bill, but I hope that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will take very seriously this criticism which has come from more than one hon. Member in respect of Clause 1(2).
  If it is to be brought home to motorists that we seriously intend to impose speed limits and to impose them with a high degree of sensible flexibility, then for goodness' sake let it be made quite clear that it is not a punitive Measure, but one
  1716
  to help people to drive safely and carefully. I hope that in another place a suitable Amendment might be drafted which could be included in this very worthwhile Bill.
  12.10 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): It might be appropriate if I were to intervene at this stage for a moment or two not with any intention of cutting short discussion on the Measure, but to give the Government's view on the Bill.
  Though, really, there is not a great deal that I can add to the very clear exposition of the purpose and the effect of the Bill which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) provided when he moved its Third Reading, which, I thought, he did very convincingly, there is one thing that I can say, and that is how much we in the Government are indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend not only for the general enthusiasm which he always displays in all transport matters, but especially here for the skill with which he has achieved what so far has defeated us, by clothing this idea in legislative form and getting it so far so quickly.
  Though this Bill which we are now discussing may be a quite modest Measure, its effect could be quite important for safety on the roads. It will provide my right hon. Friend with a new degree of flexibility in the imposition of speed limits so that they will more nearly accord with road conditions, and, because of this, make a greater appeal to the common sense of the motorist and so achieve the purpose of speed limits which is the creation of conditions that will encourage greater safety on the roads.
  At present, as the House is aware, this happy state of flexibility does not exist. As my hon. and gallant Friend explained, the Minister has powers to impose a temporary speed limit, but the difficulty is that if this speed limit is not to be a general one covering all roads then traffic signs have to be provided.
  Obviously, for a temporary speed limit it is not practicable to provide signs on more than a small mileage of roads, and, consequently, our trials of speed limits have had to be either on a very small scale with signposts, or, if general, then the speed limit would almost certainly be

  1717
  too low for the best and most modern of our roads. Thus the instrument which has been at our disposal up to now is rather a blunt one—better than nothing at all, but not so good as it might be.
  Mr. Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend said that it would not be practicable to provide signs where the speed limit had been introduced on a temporary or experimental basis. I appreciate that it would not be practicable to introduce on such stretches of the highway a more permanent type of sign to which we are accustomed, but would it not be practicable on such stretches of the highway to introduce a more portable type of sign, made, perhaps, chiefly of plastic?
  Mr. Galbraith: If my hon. Friend will wait I intend to deal rather more with the identification of roads, which is an important point.
  As I was saying when my hon. Friend interrupted me, the instrument at our disposal at the moment is a rather blunt one, but it is better than nothing, though not nearly as good as it might be. This imperfection has spurred my hon. and gallant Friend to action, and if the House gives the Bill a Third Reading, and in due course it becomes law, then the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend, as particularised in the Bill, will have the effect of turning the present blunt instrument into a much sharper one capable of greater precision. It will then be possible for my right hon. Friend to prescribe limits which are suited to the conditions of the particular classes of road and to the nature of the traffic on them.
  One of the difficulties up till now has been that though there are different kinds of roads easily identifiable at the Ministry, my right hon. Friend has lacked power to apply special limits to them. This has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking), for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) and for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). The important thing is not whether or not the roads are signposted but whether or not they are easily identifiable to the man in the motor car.
  Although it is quite clear whether one is driving on a dual carriageway or one is not—anyone can see that, and if one is dealing with clearways they do have signposts at the entrance to them—up
  1718
  to now, though there are these roads which are suitable for higher speed limits, my right hon. Friend has lacked power to apply different speed limits to them.
  As a result, however, of the provisions of the Bill my right hon. Friend will in future be able to decide that though in general, say, a 50-mile-an-hour speed limit would be appropriate for most roads, on well-designed roads such as a dual carriageway or even a clearway, a limit of 60 miles an hour would be perfectly safe.
  Sir H. Harrison: Am I right in thinking that there would be no necessity for the Minister to impose any limit on the highways—that he could impose a 60-mile-an-hour limit or no limit at all?
  Mr. Galbraith: I agree absolutely with my hon. and gallant Friend. There would be no need to impose any limit. I was just giving an example.
  The trouble is that in general a speed limit, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, has to be low enough to have a significant restraining effect on ordinary roads, and 50 miles an hour is, we consider, high enough for that purpose. But this is unduly restrictive on most dual carriage way roads and even on some single carriageway roads as well. My hon. and gallant Friend's Bill will enable the Minister to differentiate between the different roads. Looking to the future, this power to discriminate will be particularly valuable on the primary routes which are envisaged as part of the Worboys signposting reforms.
  I have talked a lot about speed limits and I should not like the House, or, indeed, the motoring public, to conclude from what I have said that my right hon. Friend will use this Bill, if and when it becomes law, as an excuse for starting a new restrictive policy on speeds generally. My right hon. Friend has no such intention. He merely hopes by means of the Bill, when general limits are necessary for experimental purposes, to be able to apply them with greater relevance to conditions on particular kinds of roads.
  The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) asked a question, echoed by his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol,

  1719
  South-East (Mr. Benn), about local authorities. In fact, my right hon. Friend does not need the consent of local authorities in order to impose speed limits. Nor has he received any objection from them when he has done so. In any case, a speed limit order of this sort can remain in force only for four months unless Parliament gives its approval to an extension, so clearly this is all experimental and there is nothing to worry about. It has no relevance to the sort of roads which have permanent limits on them such as the roads to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith) referred.
  As to the use of these powers, the House will recall that last year there was a general feeling that the limit imposed in the summer for five weekends, though appropriate for most roads at such a time, was too restrictive on some of the roads. This summer, despite the fact that this Bill may be law, my right hon. Friend has decided not to impose any general limit at all as he did last year, and the absence of one this year will give him an interesting comparison on the effectiveness of such general restrictions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham asked about the results last year. I have a few figures and I hope it will not bore the House if I give them. In the first weekend last year there was a 10 per cent. decrease in casualties; in the second weekend there was an 8 per cent. decrease; in the third weekend there was a 26 per cent. increase; in the fourth weekend there was an 11 per cent. increase; and in the fifth weekend an 8 per cent. increase.
  These figures take account, approximately, of variations between 1962 and 1963 in the amount of traffic. It was not possible, however, to make allowances for variations in weather, which also have a very important effect on the accident risk. In view of this, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the effect of the speed limit on casualties. Some speed measurements were taken, but only at a few points and not on every weekend. They suggest that the speed limit reduced speeds on the first weekend but offer no real guidance on other weekends.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, in which I am sure that the country will be interested. Will not he agree that now the only thing which can be done is to compare those figures with this year, when there will be no speed limit, and we shall have an overall rough and ready check after the summer?
  Mr. Galbraith: Naturally, we shall do that, but even then it would be dangerous to draw conclusions. The experiment has not gone on for a sufficient number of years.
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely important announcement. During the Third Reading of a Bill which is designed to introduce a speed limit, he has announced that the Minister will make the experiment this year of abandoning the 50 m.p.h. speed limit. He has given figures which show that at any rate a 50 m.p.h. speed limit had an effect in reducing accidents. We do not know whether the rise in the number of accidents later was because people disregarded the speed limit or otherwise. It is a curious opportunity to take to make a major announcement of this kind.
  Mr. Galbraith: In fact, these figures have been made public. I think at the end of the summer. I should like to check that, but I think that my right hon. Friend did issue a Press statement giving substantially these figures, and all that I was doing was trying to help my hon. Friend who had asked about them.
  Mr. Benn: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the point is not whether the figure was 3 per cent., but whether this is the moment to make an announcement that there is not to be a 50 m.p.h. speed limit this summer, when it is not possible for the House to debate it.
  Mr. Galbraith: I should have thought that if my right hon. Friend had decided to have a speed limit, that would have been the occasion for a debate. But when he says that he is not to have a speed limit, surely that is reverting to what has been the practice in the past. What he did last year was to make a change. This year there is to be no change. He is continuing what is the normal practice.
  Mr. Darling: I hope that I have got this clear. As I understand it, what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying is that the Minister is to experiment, or, rather, go back to the previous situation, to see whether, having got rid of the speed limit, there will be any more, or fewer, accidents. In other words, he is taking an awful risk—
  Mr. Bean: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Darling: —in going back to the previous situation. I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), that this is a very curious occasion on which to make an announcement.
  It may be that it is an announcement which fits within the rules of order, but we are thinking about the millions of motorists on the roads. It is their interests that we have to consider and I object strongly to a statement of this kind being made in such a way that we cannot discuss it in the House.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must observe the rules of order. I have been much too indulgent this morning. I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the House are in a position to throw stones or notices about.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I was not intending to offend the House in any way, but I find it very difficult that when one says that one is not going to do anything it should be regarded as a statement of policy.
  Mr. Darling: It is.
  Sir H. Harrison: I could understand the Minister making this statement when the speed limit was a blanket overall speed limit. But I ask him to speak to his right hon. Friend to see whether, if the Bill gets a passage through another place and becomes law in time, he might be able to think again—when he will have flexible powers—about whether it would be wise to use them this August.
  Mr. Galbraith: It is a bad thing to intervene during the speech of someone else unless one knows exactly what is going to be said. I am coming on to the future in a minute or two.
  Though there is to be no general speed limit this summer, my right hon.
  1722
  Friend intents to have a further trial of the 50 m.p.h. speed limit on certain trunk roads—about 700 miles of them—which was what my hon. and gallant Friend was referring to. In 1963, 700 miles of selected trunk roads were subjected to a 50 m.p.h. speed limit on 16 weekends between Whitsun and mid-September. This showed a reduction of 29 per cent. In accidents and 26 per cent. in casualties compared with 1959. Comparable roads on which a speed limit was not imposed showed reductions of 16 per cent. in accidents and 15 per cent. in casualties.
  The 50 m.p.h. limit on selected roads, as distinct from the general one, has been effective in reducing the speed of traffic and the frequency of accidents. Speed measurements taken in 1963 showed a significant reduction in the volume of traffic travelling at more than 50 m.p.h. The accident record improved by about 12 percent. as compared with similar roads on which a speed limit was not applied but which had the same degree of police patrolling. Although it is very early to attempt to draw any conclusions, the 50 m.p.h. speed limit on an 8-mile length of the A.1 has been effective.
  The frequency of accidents has been less than half what it was before the speed limit was imposed, and even over the relatively short period of six months such a difference is unlikely to have arisen by chance. The present trend, therefore, or these selected roads, 700 miles of them, is promising and, though the figures are by no means conclusive, my right hon. Friend thinks it right to have another experiment this summer.
  Meeting the point of my hon. and gallant Friend and looking further into the future, if this Measure appeals to Parliament and the Bill becomes law—
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: Can the hon. Gentleman make clear whether the experiment for this summer on the stated mileage will be with or without signposts?
  Mr. Galbraith: This will be with signposts, the 700 miles which have signposts.
  I was saying that by Christmas, when we hope that the Bill will have become law, it will enable my right hon. Friend

  1723
  to impose a general speed limit which is considered to be appropriate for Christmas conditions. With this legislation my right hon. Friend can do so with greater precision and exempt from the lower limit roads for which it is inappropriate and impose a higher limit on them, or, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, have no limit at all.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the important matter of enforcement. I agree that this is a very important matter. Unfortunately, it is a matter which as a Minister from the Ministry of Transport I am not competent to deal. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, though I can assure the House that we are in close touch with the Home Department at all times.
  I think that the Bill will appeal to motorists who are very willing to cooperate with a limit which seems to suit conditions, but who naturally become frustrated when they consider the limit bears no relation to the conditions on the roads. This sense of frustration, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) causes them sometimes to drive badly and so a higher limit on a suitable road may mean that somewhat faster speeds actually produce greater safety and fewer accidents. At any rate, the Bill gives my right hon. Friend a degree of flexibility which he has not had before and which will enable him to experiment so that he may treat different roads differently according to their peculiar characteristics. This flexibility should help motorists and safety.
  For all these reasons, on behalf of the Government, I warmly welcome the Bill. Again I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye for the trouble that he has taken to "father" it and I commend it most heartily to the favourable consideration of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SCRAP METAL DEALERS BILL
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
SCRAP METAL DEALERS BILL

  Clause 2.—(RECORDS OF DEALINGS.)
  12.30 p.m.
  Mr. W. Howie: I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, after "place", to insert "or elsewhere".
  Mr. Speaker: It will probably be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the Amendment in line 8, after "place", insert "or elsewhere".
  Mr. Howie: That will be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
  The Bill generally is part of the modernisation of Britain which is going on. It has the effect of gathering together the rules under which the scrap metal trade is conducted. The laws date back to 1861, and the most recent Measure dates from 1907. In the Committee my hon. Friends were generally in agreement with the aims of the Bill and fully accepted its ideas, but some of us feel that there are aspects of the Measure which can be improved, and my Amendments are intended to deal with one difficulty which we have perceived. I am more interested in having the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry), the sponsor of the Bill, accept the principle of my Amendment rather than the precise words, about which I am a little doubtful.
  Clause 2 obliges scrap metal dealers to keep a book in which to record the material which they have gathered in. Subsection (1,a) states that the dealer shall enter into the book particulars of all scrap metal received at "that place", that being the place where he conducts his business and has his store. I am told that certain scrap metal dealers in carrying out part of their business are in the habit of buying a lorry-load, cart-load or truck-load of scrap at one place and transferring it directly to the eventual purchaser. To comply with the Bill, the dealer would have to take the consignment into his store and receive it at "that place", register it in the book and then send it out to the eventual purchaser. This seems an unreasonable procedure.
  I have been told in conversations that this difficulty is covered by Clause 3(5),

  1725
  but I notice that that is concerned with the scrap metal dealer who does not occupy any place as a scrap metal store. An Amendment along the lines that I have suggested would remove what seems to be an anomaly and improve the Bill.
  Sir Donald Kaberry: I appreciate the motives of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), and I recognise that in Committee his colleagues showed that they wished to make the Bill a modern and workable proposition for the control and dealing in scrap metal of scrap metal dealers, but I hope that after what I have to say the hon. Member will feel disposed to withdraw his Amendment.
  The object of the Bill is clearly set out in Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1 provides that every local authority shall keep a register of everyone in the area dealing in scrap metal, and it becomes the duty of every scrap metal dealer, defined as in the Clause, to register at the place where he carries on his business. Clause 2 requires the dealer to keep very strict and clear records of all metals received by him at that place and all metals sold by him from that place of business.
  The Bill lays down that it will be an offence for a dealer to carry on his business at a place other than that at which he is registered. It may well be that he will be carrying on business in the areas of several local authorities, and he will be required to register in each of those areas.
  Despite the good intentions of the hon. Member for Luton, the effect of the Amendment would be to put an excessive burden upon the scrap metal dealer in any one area. If we added to the provision concerning scrap metal brought into or sent out of the dealer's place of business the words "or elsewhere", it would mean that at each place the dealer would have to keep a full record of all transactions at all his places of business. I am sure that hon. Members would accept that that would be an unnecessary burden for the dealer.
  The hon. Member for Luton expressed fears about transactions taking place on a truck. I do not think this happens at all; if it does, it is on the rarest of
  1726
  occasions. No reputable scrap metal dealer does other than take the metal to his place of business or yard. He does that for specific reasons. He wants to weigh it in his yard, check its quality and quantity and sort it out.
  In addition, if the Bill is to be a workable proposition it is absolutely essential that the fullest details of transactions shall be entered into the books required to be kept under Clause 2. The whole object of the Bill is to ensure that records are kept. Every local authority has insisted on this since 1861—though I need not go now into the details of why that is. If a scrap metal dealer got into the habit of carrying out transactions away from his place of business, he might well find himself in difficulties through carrying on business from a place at which he was not registered, for which he would be subject to fairly heavy penalties.
  However, I draw attention to Clause 3(5). If a scrap metal dealer has no yard of his own and he is collecting metal elsewhere and immediately delivering it to somebody else, that provision requires; him to keep a full record of all metal received in the course of his business as a scrap metal dealer.
  For all those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will feel inclined to withdraw his Amendment, having made his point. I assure him and the House that I am fully conscious of the motives which inspired him to try to tighten up the law on this point to make sure that there is no gap through which a man who may be inclined to some degree of dishonesty tray escape the full provisions of the Bill. Having regard to the way the Bill is drawn and the existing practice, there is no fear that anything wrong will be done.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry). The Clause makes it clear what happens. The dealer often buys the scrap and then takes it into store and does what is known as a breakdown. He finds that he has perhaps a certain amount of brass, a certain amount of copper, a certain amount of steel and perhaps even some nickel. He has to break it all down and to check

  1727
  it in his yard, and he invoices it out in that form. Clause 2 refers to
  "all scrap metal either processed at, or despatched from, that place".
  In paragraph (a) and (b) we have built in a certain degree of safeguard.
  The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) envisaged a certain different type of transaction. I do not think that any reputable scrap metal dealer would indulge in this type of trading. Moreover, as I read the Amendment, I do not think that it would achieve the object which the hon. Member has in mind, because the wording would cover metal received by anyone, anywhere.
  One of the problems is that there are two types of dealer both of whom we wish to bring under the scope of legislation. There is the type of dealer described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West, who brings the stuff in, weighs it, checks it, and then sends it out. This Clause and other Clauses endeavour to make sure that he has a proper record, that the public is protected, that larceny to some extent is prevented and that the law is brought up to date.
  There is a different type of dealer, known as a totter, who buys from private households and various sources and then disposes of the material, usually to a dealer, though this may not be the case. This is the type of transaction which the hon. Member for Luton is trying to include, but I do not think that this is the right way to do it. This form of transaction could be dealt with under Clause 3(5) in respect of the itinerant dealer. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I feel that this type of transaction would be better caught under a different Clause rather than by altering this Clause. I appreciate the sentiments which prompted the hon. Member to put down the Amendment and to give us an opportunity to discuss the matter, but I do not think that it achieves the object which could be achieved under Clause 3(5). I cannot support the Amendment and I hope that the hon. Member will, in due time, withdraw it.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: I am somewhat in a quandary about the Amendment. I listened to the hon.
  1728
  Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) and I feel that there is something in what he said. Very reputable scrap dealers have contracts with smelting firms under which they deliver scrap, which most smelting firms want. The dealer goes round buying the scrap from factories and elsewhere, and he wishes to deliver it straight to the smelting firm, thus cutting down his handling and transport charges.
  That is a respectable and useful contract, but it can be abused if a dishonest scrap dealer obtains scrap from a dishonest source, for he is not caught by the Bill. I heard what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) about that, but I am awaiting the answer of the Under-Secretary of State to see whether the type of transaction to which the hon. Member for Luton referred, and to which I referred in a little more detail, is caught by the Bill. It could easily lend itself to dishonesty, and there is, therefore, a great deal to be said for the Amendment, which the House ought to consider carefully. If the type of transaction to which the hon. Member for Luton referred, and to which I have referred in greater detail, is not caught under the Bill, we ought to insert provisions to make certain that the Bill catches that type of transaction.
  A dealer may take a lorry-load straight from the factory to the furnace, and he may weigh it and then enter it into his book a short time afterwards. Every factory is accustomed to weighing goods delivered by lorry. The lorry is weighed when full and again when empty, and the difference represents the load. We should not be imposing very difficult restrictions on any dealer who was required to do the same thing.
  I shall listen with interest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to see whether the type of transaction mentioned by the hon. Member for Luton is caught by the Bill.
  12.45 p.m.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Usually the metal which a dealer purchases is a mixed bag, and he would be very reluctant to deal with it in gross because he might be selling brass or some other metal in his consignment which was worth 15 times as much as scrap iron. The dealer prefers not to sell in gross but to break

  1729
  down his purchase and then to resell parts of it at the appropriate price.
  Mr. Doughty: I entirely agree that when a dealer buys scrap of different kinds in gross he must break it down before he can sell it, because the buyer nearly always wants scrap of one kind. But there are factories from which the scrap is all of one kind, and it is in respect of this that there are contracts to sell direct to some other place. This is the type of transaction which the hon. Member for Luton and I have in mind, and which I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with when she advises the House what attitude to adopt towards the Amendment.
  Mr George Darling: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) in his Amendment. The confusion, if there is any confusion, arises from the very bad drafting of the Bill. I do not blame the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) for this, because he has taken the Bill, as he explained in Committee, from the Report, but I think that the Home Office should be severely criticised for having put the Bill before us in this fashion. I will come to that point later because if I were to talk particularly about Clause 1, Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order.
  But there is some confusion in all Clauses about where the intention of the Bill is directed. Surely in this case the purpose is to trace stolen metal. That is what the Bill is after, and for this purpose records must be kept.
  Mr. Doughty: The purpose of the Bill is to catch the thieves.
  Mr. Darling: But first of all it is to trace the stolen metal. The dealers are being asked, quite properly to keep a record of their transactions, because we hope—I do not know whether it will—that this will make it easier for the metal to be traced if the police want to trace it.
  I apologise for making these criticisms at this stage, but I have been rather involved in other legislation lately, and, frankly, I did not read the Bill until last week-end. I was appalled by it. We are saying in Clause 2—and this is the part to which the Amendment is directed—that all scrap metal dealers must keep
  1730
  a book. Yet we are told that this is a modem Bill. Most records nowadays are kept in the form of a card index. Must it be a book? Why not say that a scrap metal dealer must keep a record of his transactions? Why all this involved language about a book? If it was clearly stated that a duty is imposed upon the scrap metal dealer to keep a record of his transactions, then, if the transactions were simply set out, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton would not be in this state of confusion, if there is confusion. I am not charging him with it.
  I agree will the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East that we want to find out for certain, if this is the purpose of the Clause, whether in the Clause, or in a subsequent Clause, all transactions are properly covered and whether records must be kept of all transactions at every place where the transactions occur. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope, as he does, that the Joint Under-Secretary can give an assurance that what my hon. Friend seeks to achieve by the Amendment is achieved already by the Bill.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: Like preceding speakers, I await with interest the comments of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary. I think that something must be said at this stage. Although I, like everybody else, respect the intentions of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), who moved the Amendment, a point has been overlooked which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry). If the suggested words were added to the Bill, a ridiculous and impracticable situation would be created. That is not to say that the Clause is perfect as it stands. My point is that the addition of the words in the Amendment would not make the position better, but worse.
  This is because, as far as I understand it, the Bill would then mean that a scrap metal dealer with four, five or six stores—this often happens—would at each of the stores have to keep a record, not only of the metal received at that store, but of the metal received at all the other stories. This would be the most perfect example of cross-referencing which could exist. In practice, it would break down altogether. It is always very dangerous to pass into

  1731
  law words or provisions which we know in advance cannot be enforced because they are impracticable. It is not sensible to suggest that the individuals who would be expected to keep these books would be able to go from one store to another and check up that they had recorded everything which they had received at all their other stores.
  Therefore, I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary tell us how the position is covered by the Bill as it stands, but, with all respect to the hon. Member for Luton, I do not believe that his Amendment would accomplish that purpose.
  The Joint Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): There is very little that I can add to the very full description of what takes place which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) gave in his opening remarks. I stress that the purpose of the Bill is, as far as possible, to get the right balance between enabling scrap metal dealers to go ahead with their business as efficiently as possible, putting as few limitations on them as is feasible in the conditions under which they work, and ensuring that we are as far as possible stopping the loopholes for those engaged in dishonest transactions.
  I cannot give a categorical assurance that every single loophole has been satisfactorily stopped, and stopped in a way which perhaps my hon. and learned Friend would like. To do this would add great complications to the Bill and would to some extent impede the efficient discharge of the scrap metal dealer's business. I believe that in the Bill we have the right balance. We believe that the real dishonesty will go. We are anxious not to add any undue complications to hinder further the efficient practice of those honest traders who do such a good job.
  Mr. Howie: I agree with much of the criticism which has been levelled at my Parliamentary drafting. I am not very good at it. I would not die for the literary style of these two Amendments. They give rise to some difficulties. They are rather more wide-ranging in their wording than I had intended. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that a
  1732
  particular kind of business has not been covered in the Bill. I do not think that I am reassured by the comments which have been made by the promoters of the Bill and by its supporters. There are kinds of scrap which arise from industrial processes which are all of the same kind. In shipyards there are off-cuts of steel plate. In constructional engineering there are off-cuts of steel angles. In such places everything is of the same material. There are not the mixed up batches of steel and brass which have been mentioned.
  Under the Bill a transaction which might be minor but which occurs in which a dealer buys from a source and transmits it to a buyer would now be made rather more difficult. Under the Bill, if someone wanted to conduct part of his business in this way, he would be obliged to bring the material in to his yard first and then take it out. This is unnecessary. It has been covered in the case of a dealer who has no yard. A dealer with a yard in which he wants to do this type of business should be permitted to do so without too much difficulty.
  I agree that there are weaknesses in the Amendments, though I think they meet the principle. I hope that the Home Office will reconsider this and that second thoughts will prevail in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 4.—(POWER FOR COURT TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ON CON- VICTED DEALERS.)
  Sir D. Kaberry: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, to leave out "any offence under" and to insert:
  "an offence under section 2 of"
  Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to take with this Amendment the Amendment in page 7, line 23, at end insert:
  "and the court by which he is convicted may, if it thinks fit, make in relation to him a further order under that subsection".
  Mr. Speaker: They can be discussed together, if the House so pleases.
  Sir D. KaberryThe Clause deals with additional requirements which a court can impose upon a dealer convicted of certain offences. Most of the Clause follows upon recommendations

  1733
  made by a working party which, in 1955, examined all the problems associated with scrap metal dealers. Clause 5(2) substantially repeats Section 8(2) of the Old Metal Dealers Act, 1861, which is wholly repealed subsequently in the Bill.
  When this matter was discussed at some length in Committee, certain points were raised about the possible severity of the additional requirements which could be put on conviction of a technical offender. As subsection (1, b) is now drafted, it makes a—
  "person for the time being registered under this Act as a scrap metal dealer"—
  on conviction—
  "of any offence under this Act, or"—
  on conviction of certain other offences, subject to the penalties, at the discretion of the court, provided for in subsection (4).
  It has been pointed out that, under the Bill as a whole, there could be quite a number of what I may call technical offences, or offences which take place because the dealer is not wholly sensitive of time factors. For example, a dealer could be found guilty of failure to notify a change in the particulars of registration under Clause 1(7). He could be convicted under Clause 1(8) if he did not give notice that he had ceased business. An itinerant dealer could be found guilty of failure to keep receipts for two years. A dealer could he found guilty of acquiring scrap metal from a person under 16, or of obstructing inspection by the police or an authorised person.
  1.0 p.m.
  It may be felt that offences of that kind do not call for the severity of the additional requirements of subsection (2) and I am happy to restrict the additional punishment to what is, in spite of what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said, the major effect of the Bill, which is clearly set out in Clause 2, namely, the keeping of records. That is the real drive in the Bill.
  The effect of the Amendment would be that if a person had been convicted of contravening Clause 1(1) by not registering—seeking to carry on business illegally, as it were—or if, having registered, he did not keep the records
  1734
  required by Clause 2, the court may, if it thinks fit, impose upon the dealer the additional requirements as set out in subsection (2) of Clause 4, which repeats what has been the law since 1861.
  By my second Amendment, any person found guilty of an offence under Clause 4 would he subject to further additional requirements to be imposed upon him by the court which might find him guilty of an offence under subsection (4). My two Amendments seek to limit the restrictions which can be placed upon a convicted person who is a scrap metal dealer. These concessions are reasonable. They do not detract from the effectiveness of the Bill and would enable the honest dealer to carry on business.
  Mr. Darling: I am wondering, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether, to speed up the debate and to cover the whole subject at once, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) might be allowed to move his Amendment in page 6, line 40, leave out from "of" to the end of line 42 and insert "receiving stolen goods".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker, (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It is quite possible to discuss that Amendment with the present one, but it cannot be moved at this stage.
  Sir D. Kaberry: In that event, I should like to say a word or two on the addistional point raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) in line 40. I agree that this procedure will speed up matters, because we are all anxious to get on with this and other business which is to follow.
  The Amendment of the hon. Member for Luton seeks to delete the additional conviction which would make a scrap metal dealer subject to the additional requirements set out in the Clause—that is:
  "or is convicted of any offence which in the opinion of the Court convicting him, is an offence involving dishonesty".
  The object of the Clause is to ensure that there is a closer degree of supervision on any dealer who is proved guilty of dishonesty. A dishonest motive must be involved in the crime with which he is charged. It is for the court at the

  1735
  time of conviction to decide in its discretion whether to impose the additional requirement for supervision.
  The Amendment seeks to delete certain words from Clause 4(1,b) and to limit it solely to an offence of receiving stolen goods. On reflection, it will be seen that this is too keen a limitation. It would eliminate the offence of stealing. A dealer might have stolen or obtained the goods by false pretences. There might be a variety of other ways in which he is charged and found guilty of an offence involving dishonesty.
  It has been pointed out that in this matter at least, dishonesty is indivisible. If a dealer is dishonest, he will know the penalty and if he is found guilty the court may impose the additional requirements as set out in subsection (2) that he will be limited to receiving metal at his place of business within certain defined hours and that he may have to keep it for a period of 72 hours from the time when he received it.
  That is the existing law concerning convictions for dishonesty of that nature. It is a repetition of certain provisions of the Old Metal Dealers Act, 1861, and it is a desirable check. The scrap metal dealer who might think of committing an offence which involved dishonesty might well pause and not commit a crime because he will know the consequences which may follow.
  Mr. Doughty: I should like my hon. Friend to explain the provision that a person convicted of receiving stolen goods cannot, under the Bill, be a licensed scrap dealer.
  Sir D. Kaberry: If my hon. and learned Friend had had the opportunity of studying the report of the working party, he would have found that the evidence given therein is to the effect that there is at present no restriction upon anybody applying to be registered as a scrap metal dealer. The Bill does not make any such additional requirement. The evidence is fascinating, because it affects the city which the hon. Member for Hillsborough represents. At the inquiry in 1954 and 1955, the chief constable of Sheffield gave evidence to show that no restriction was put upon a convicted person applying for a licence. It was desired rather to have
  1736
  him in the open, to know what he was doing and to have him registered.
  Mr. Howie: I am in complete agreement with the two Amendments which the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) has introduced. I should like merely to comment on my Amendment in page 6, line 40. My feeling is that as it stands, the Bill is unreasonably wide and sweeping in its demands. I can think of no real reason why any offence involving dishonesty should put a dealer in the position that restrictions might be placed upon him. I realise that the court is not bound to impose these restrictions, but it might do so.
  The purpose of the Bill is, presumably, to catch those scrap metal dealers who steal, or deal in stolen goods, but "an offence involving dishonesty" covers quite a wide range of offences that dealer might commit apart from his type of business. It seems unreasonable to me that when an offence involving dishonesty is committed, it should, in the case of these dealers, carry not only the usual appropriate fine but also a threat to the man's business.
  A trivial example of an offence involving dishonesty is that of the person travelling on a train without a ticket and without meaning to pay the fare. I agree that the court would probably not bring to bear the full weight of punishment in that case, but it could do so if these words are used. It would be more logical and reasonable to limit the range to those offences that are themselves within the ambit of business dealings.
  In my Amendment, I have particularised the receiving of stolen goods which seems to be the main offence involving dishonesty that would arise here, but my plain purpose is to narrow the unduly wide range of the wording.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: What the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) seeks to do is to limit the limit, but I think that he would make it far too narrow. The hon. Member fairly says that a scrap dealer who is caught in dishonesty is punished for that offence and should not incur any further penalty for it, but we are trying to close the gate to a particular type of offence. If the

  1737
  court is allowed to impose certain further conditions it may prevent the man committing the offence again. I do not think that the hon. Member for Luton would disagree with me on that point.
  1.15 p.m.
  I am a little worried lest my hon. Friend's Amendments should deal only with the person who is working on registered premises. It has already been said that certain categories of dealer are only caught by Clause 5 as it stands, which means that the itinerant dealer, caught by Clause 5, would not in any way be affected by this Amendment—
  Sir D. Kaberry: I think that my hon. Friend refers to Clause 3 rather than to Clause 5.
  Dr. Glyn: My hon. Friend is quite right. If these Amendments affect the itinerary dealer—
  Sir D. Kaberry: Perhaps I may interrupt my hon. Friend to deal with that point at once. The object of the first of my Amendments is to relieve the itinerant dealer of the heavy additional charges that could be imposed on him by the court. As the Bill comes before us this morning, an itinerant dealer who, first, does not get a receipt for any metal he sells and, secondly, does not keep that receipt for two years, can be guilty of an offence under that Clause, but not in respect of these additional requirements in the subsection. This is an easement of the burden, which I think most of us are anxious to make.
  Dr. Glyn: I am grateful for that explanation, because that is exactly my point.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: I agree wholeheartedly with the Amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry). I cannot say the same of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) because, though I have considerable sympathy with his object, the words he uses would narrow the offence too much. His Amendment refers only to receiving stolen goods, but one thinks at once also of larceny, burglary and various other more serious offences which
  1738
  should come in here just as much as receiving stolen goods. I agree that we cannot go as far as to prevent a man carrying on this kind of work just because he has been convicted of travelling on a bus without a ticket, and we want to make sure that the wording does not include that sort of thing.
  Should my hon. Friend decide not to press his Amendment and these proceedings are read in another place, a short list of relevant offences could there be inserted in the Bill in place of the rather vague and imprecise reference to "dishonesty". In that case, my hon. Friend's purpose would be accomplished, and we would all be satisfied.
  Mr. Darling: Like the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) I hope that, if it is agreed that the wording in Clause 4(1,b) is imprecise, the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State will suggest that it, too, can be dealt with in another place. I agree with the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry), I also have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) because, as the Bill now stands, the impression is given that a man is to be punished twice for the same offence. At the same time, I agree that if a man has been sentenced for an offence, the restrictions the court may then put on him are part of his punishment.
  But it gives the impression that the kind of second punishment that he gets is really a second punishment for the same offence. If the man has stolen metal or has received stolen metal the magistrates hand out to him the punishment which they think he deserves in terms of the law. They fine him or send him to prison. But when he comes out of prison, or when he has paid his fine, these restrictions are still placed upon him.
  As to the question which was raised in Standing Committee, the proceedings of which I have read, the man who may be charged and punished for a technical offence would obviously not be landed in difficulties, because one cannot conceive of a magistrate handing out this kind of punishment for the sort of technical offence to which my hon. Friend has referred. But it seems to me that if

  1739
  the offence of dishonesty is not more tightly drawn so that it relates to the business of metal dealing, we can get the man into difficulties, and not only himself but his employees, if the effect of the restriction makes it difficult for him to carry on his business.
  It may be that such a man has been punished in court quite properly, for instance, for selling a car which has a hire-purchase transaction attached to it, and he has not told the buyer that there is an outstanding hire-purchase transaction. He may be charged and convicted for stealing a woman's handbag out of her shopping basket. As the Clause now stands a magistrate, without any reference to what may be the offence of dishonesty, could place this restriction upon his business.
  I do not want to defend the criminal in this sort of case. In fact, I strongly hold the view that quite a lot of the punishments for people who are rightly convicted are far too light. But we have to look at this matter very carefully indeed. As I say, it is the owner of the business, if he has committed the offence, who has the restriction placed upon him, but it may be that his innocent employees also would, to some extent, suffer for what he has done.
  Therefore, the Clause should be tightened up so that the offence which calls down the restriction should be related to the scrap metal business in some way or other. Frankly, I would deprive such a man of his registration; we do not want people of this kind continuing in business.
  My hon. Friend's Amendment attempts to do all this, but it has the effect, which has been pointed out, that even if it were acceptable in its present form it would cover only the case of receiving stolen goods and would let out the thief if he were the person in the scrap metal business who actually stole the stuff. I hope this point will be looked at again.
  There is another angle which should be considered. It was implicit in the Report of the Committee that went into this matter and reported in 1955, and it is implicit also in the Bill, that stolen metal in present circumstances is often very difficult to trace, that if a suspected receiver, or a person who has been
  1740
  known to be a receiver of stolen metal and has been convicted, can be compelled to keep the metal for a period of 72 hours before processing it, the police might find it easier and he himself might be persuaded not to continue stealing or receiving stolen metal.
  This proposition in the Clause seems to me to be full of suppositions that ought not to appear in this kind of Statute. As I see it, it supposes that a once-convicted thief or receiver will continue so to act, that these are the people who are going to do the stealing in the future. But they may go straight, and yet they will still have the restrictions placed upon them, although I agree only for a limited period. It may be that there is not much in that point, but I do not think it is the kind of restriction which will give the right kind of encouragement to the penitent thief.
  Mr. Doughty: Could the hon. Member define a penitent thief?
  Mr. Darling: The man who does not steal again. The hon. and learned Member knows precisely what I mean. I am merely trying to speed things up.
  The Clause also supposes that a man has not mended his ways, but that he will be stupid enough to obey the law and will keep the stolen metal for three days in order to help the police, if he commits a later offence, to apprehend him and charge him. It also supposes that in order to assist the police, he will not sneak stolen metal into his yard during the hours of darkness. Of course, such a man will go on doing these things and I do not see how these restrictions will help.
  Sir D. Kaberry: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is the existing law?
  Mr. Darling: I know. That is what I was coming to. I see no defence in saying that this has been the law since 1861. There are quite a number of old laws that I want to change, and I am sure many lawyers in this House would like to change them too. It would be out of order to give a list, and, in any case, if I were to do so I would be speaking until 4 o'clock. Nevertheless, it is no defence to say that this is and has been the law since 1861.
  I do not think my hon. Friend's Amendment covers the point. I hope the

  1741
  Home Office will look at this point again and will see whether the wording of the whole Clause can be reconsidered in another place so that we can get the whole thing into good order and it will be acceptable to this House.
  Mr. Doughty: I speak only on the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), and I regret to say that I have to speak against it.
  I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has said. I see no reason why the wording should not remain as it is at present. For several days we have been considering the Resale Prices Bill, and throughout we have said, "Let us define the gateways and leave the rest to the Restrictive Practices Court." That is exactly what I say about this Bill. If the words were amended as he suggested, I think that they would be too harsh, because the court would be left with no discretion. But here the court has an absolute discretion to do what it likes.
  Mr. Darling: If the hon. and learned Member will look at the reports of the speeches made by the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade on the question of the gateways, he will see that on every occasion his right hon. Friend said that the gateways must be precisely defined.
  Mr. Doughty: Yes, but the question whether a person gets through the gateway must be left to the Restrictive Practices Court. However, I would be out of order if I were to pursue the argument on those lines.
  There is only one small technical point to which I should like to refer. The court by which a man is convicted very often sends the case to another court for sentence because that other court has wider powers. If this Clause were applied to a bad case, the superior court might say, "We did not convict this man. We have only got him here for sentence." That is a point which the Home Office should remember when the Bill is in another place.
  Mr. Darling: The man could be sent back to the court which convicted.
  Mr. Doughty: No, the magistrates send him up for sentence. Magistrates should remember that before sending
  1742
  him. But sometimes before sending a man to a superior court, they forget. That is a matter which, I hope, will be looked into.
  I want to correct something said by the hon. Member for Luton and, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) and the hon. Member for Hillsborough. They spoke about technical offences, and one hon. Member referred to travelling on a train or a bus without paying the fare. But this is not the offence. The offence is travelling upon a public transport vehicle with the intention of avoiding paying the fare.
  1.30 p.m.
  Mr. Howie: I did not describe that as a technical offence. I described it as a rather far-out example of an offence involving dishonesty.
  Mr. Doughty: If I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I accept the correction. How far it is or is not dishonest to travel on a public transport vehicle with the intention of avoiding paying the fare is a matter of opinion. My view is that it is a very dishonest thing to do, though whether or not in a particular case, having regard to previous convictions, the courts would say that such an offender should be subject to these restrictions is a matter which should be left to them. To accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Luton would restrict the powers of the court to one very special type of case.
  Dishonest scrap metal dealers are only a minority, just as there is a minority of dishonest persons in every occupation and profession. Of course, they do not only receive stolen scrap, metal; they steal it then selves sometimes. If a person is found guilty of housebreaking, the court may be told that he is a registered scrap metal dealer and, on receiving this information, the court may say, "You have several convictions for housebreaking, and here is another. We think that you are an unsuitable person to carry on this trade except under the restrictions which we propose to impose". But I urge that we leave this to the courts. Let us give them the discretion.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough in thinking that the power ought really to go wider and the court

  1743
  should be able to say, "We will order your name to be removed from the register because we think that you are wholly unsuitable to carry on this type of business". Obviously, if carried on dishonestly, it is a business which lends itself to the assistance of thieves, because, without receivers, there would be no thieves. However, I should be out of order in discussing Amendments which are not down. I merely say that I should like this point to be considered. In my view, the House should not accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Luton. Perhaps he may, on reflection, not wish to press it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) wish to move his Amendment? It has been spoken to.
  Mr. Howie: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Howie: I beg to move, in page 7, line 9, to leave out "nine" and to insert "eight".
  Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to consider, at the same time, my Amendment in line 14, at the end to insert:
  Any dealer registered under the provisions of section 1(2,c) of this Act shall be exempted from these requirements.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is the wish of the House, so be it.
  Mr. Howie: There have been frequent references to the fact that much of this new Bill re-enacts the law of 1861, which was rather a long time ago particularly with respect to what punishments are suitable for certain crimes. I am left with the impression that punishment was rather more Draconian in 1861 that it is now, and I am inclined to think that some of the Draconian provisions of the Old Metal Dealers Act, 1861, have been allowed, rather unreasonably, to creep into this modernising Measure.
  Punishment should do two things. It should punish, but it should also allow opportunity at least for reformation or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) called it, penitence. In my view, the punishments laid down in Clause 4 (2) are
  1744
  unduly severe. My first Amendment is a minor one, to reduce the period laid down in paragraph (a) during which a scrap dealer convicted of dishonesty shall not conduct his business. It is proposed that he shall not receive scrap metal between the hours of six o'clock in the evening and nine o'clock in the morning, the obvious intention being that he shall not receive stolen goods during that time, and, presumably, not steal them himself either.
  In my view, the period is too long. In this trade, dealers begin their day's work at half-past seven or eight o'clock in the morning. They begin their honest and legitimate work at that time, and to limit them to doing no work until nine o'clock would be unfair. It would very much limit their competitiveness—a point which will, I assume, appeal to the Government Front Bench—vis-à-vis other scrap dealers in the area who will be given a head start of an hour or two in the morning. I cannot see how this particular provision would encourage the penitent malefactor to behave himself in the future.
  More important is my Amendment in line 14. The general intention of paragraph (b) is that all scrap metal shall be maintained for a period of 72 hours in the form in which it is received, the perfectly reasonable idea being that maintaining it in that form will ensure that it is recognisable to the police who will then be able to trace stolen material without too much difficulty, provided that they get wind of it.
  In the ordinary way, I have no great objection to this, except on one ground. It is intended by the Bill to permit certain dealers to be registered and to carry on their business although they have no office other than their own home, and they have no scrap yard. As I see it, such a man would, as a result of paragraph (b), be literally unable to carry on his business. If he has no scrap yard and carries on business from his lorry—which is permitted under the Bill—he will, if he has this restriction put upon him, either have to acquire a scrap yard somewhere or keep a lorry load of scrap metal patrolling the streets, perhaps, for 72 hours before he can do anything with it.
  I regard this limitation as an unduly severe punishment on such a scrap

  1745
  metal dealer, the man who is properly registered but has no scrap yard, and I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will accept the., Amendment.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I am attracted by the Amendment in line 9, moved by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), to make the time limit eight o'clock in the morning instead of nine. I think that it would provide more reasonable hours of work for such a merchant. I had it in mind to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) on introducing the Bill and on the enormous amount of work which he has put into bringing it to this stage.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has now suggested that the Home Office might be behind the drafting of the Bill. If so, it is understandable to me why the figure "nine" is in the Bill instead of "eight". This provision was obviously drafted by someone who works in offices and not in mills and shops, with which many of us are associated. For him, nine o'clock in the morning might be a very early hour. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry will, in the interests of trade, accept the Amendment in line 9.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: I wish briefly to endorse what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) has said. It would be wholly reasonable to accept the hour of eight o'clock rather than nine o'clock. I am delighted to say this, having had to oppose, largely on technical grounds, the last two Amendments.
  On the Amendment in line 14, I must take up my previous attitude, not because I think that it is a wrong Amendment, but because it is technically covered and therefore is superfluous. If the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) considers the matter in connection with an earlier provision in the Bill, he will find that the point is already covered. Subject to that, in view of all the efforts of the hon. Member for Luton to improve the Bill, I hope that we can give him the satisfaction of amending the hour of nine o'clock to eight o'clock.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I think that we should accept the Amendment in line 9.
  1746
  I am worried about the Amendment in line 14. I understand the worry of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) concerning the scrap metal dealer who has a lorry or a barrow. He cannot possibly keep it on the road without unloading it on, more or less, the same day. I think that that is the basis on which the hon. Member has worked. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M, Bennett) said, this matter is covered by another provision. However, this is not obligatory. It is a permissive right which the court can enforce if is thinks fit. Perhaps the court would think it necessary, in the case of a man who has five or six convictions, to ensure that the law was not continuously flouted. I think that we would do w ell to accept the Amendment in line 9 but to reject the Amendment in line 14.
  Sir D. Kaberry: I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) that I shall be delighted to accept the Amendment in line 9. The proposal with regard to nine o'clock was a repetition of an existing law which was passed way back in 1861. However, it has been reviewed by successive Acts since then, and it was reviewed as recently as 10 or 15 years ago in certain local Acts. I gladly accept the proposition that eight o'clock in the morning is a reasonable hour to start business.
  It was intended originally to deal with shady dealings which take place in the hours of darkness. Slum clearance has played its part in the location of scrap yards. Town planning is playing its part in the laying out of them. Street lighting today in some parts of the country is better than it was in 1861. Well it may be open to doubt whether it has improved in some places. However, on the whole, it is reasonable to allow a matt, if he is to be subject to these additional requirements, to start his business if he wishes to do so at eight o'clock in the morning.
  I do not think that the Amendment in line 14 is necessary. Clause 4(2) says that
  "The said requirements are that, at any place occupied by him as a scrap metal store".
  It therefore follows that if a man has not a scrap metal store these restrictions will not be imposed on him.

  1747
  In drafting the Bill, I have been much more lenient that the recommendations of the Working Party in 1955, because it said that if the court saw fit to make an imposition of this kind, even if it meant that a man had to acquire a yard or go out of business, he must suffer the consequences of a dishonest transaction or offence. I hope that the hon. Member will seek leave to withdraw the Amendment in line 14.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) anxious to move the Amendment in line 14? It has been spoken to.
  Mr. Howie: Since I have won my point on the Amendment in line 9, and in view of the reasonable explanation given by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry), I will not move the Amendment in line 14.
  Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 23, at end insert:
  "and the court by which he is convicted may, if it thinks fit, make in relation to him a further order under that subsection".—[Sir D. Kaberry.]
  1.46 p.m.
  Sir D. Kaberry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill resulted from the findings of the working party which was established to look into the law and practice relating to the sale of old metals and the control of dealers in old metals. In effect, it repeals, in part or in whole, six public Acts, the most ancient of which has been in operation since 1861, and, in part, it repeals 27 local Acts passed over the last 80 years.
  As the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) has said, the object of the Bill is to modernise and bring up to date the law on this subject. I believe that it is welcomed by the trade and that the trade associations welcome the opportunity of putting the law in a more up-to-date form and to make it abundantly clear that an honest dealer in scrap metal has nothing to fear from any of the Bill's provisions. However, woe betide the wrongdoer and the scrap metal dealer who seeks to indulge in dishonest activities.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: Would not my hon. Friend agree that one of the most
  1748
  attractive features of the Bill is that not only has the trade adopted a neutral attitude to it—it is not a case of House of Commons imposing restrictions on the trade—but the reputable members of it have for a number of years been the most active element in trying to bring about reforms in their own business?
  Sir D. Kaberry: The reasonably short speech made by my hon. Friend in that intervention amply sums up many of the things that I should have sought to state.
  The Bill requires all dealers to be registered in the areas where they carry on their trade or business. It requires them strictly to record all the dealings in metals which pass through their hands. Its object also is to assist the police in their endeavours to catch up as quickly as possible with people dealing in stolen metal.
  I need not elaborate on the aspect of the Bill which comes within that compass, but I think that I should say this. I know that at one stage some concern was expressed about the small man, the itinerant dealer, and about whether he could be asked to suffer all the implications of the Bill. The Bill as now drafted clearly provides for exceptions to be made for the itinerant collector. He will have to be registered and he will have to get receipts for metal which he sells and he will be required to keep those receipts for a reasonable time. But this does not call for an elaborate system of book keeping or understanding of restrictions in connection with his dealings.
  On the whole, I hope that the Bill will be regarded, as the hon. Member for Luton put it, as part of the process of modernising and bringing the law up to date generally. I hope that it is a useful contribution to that end.
  1.51 p.m.
  Sir H. Harrison: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) on having brought this Private Member's Bill so far to success. I hope that within a short time it will receive its Third Reading here and will have a happy passage in another place.
  We have had short debates on one or two matters which have helped some

  1749
  of us who were not so familiar as others with the Bill. I had intended to congratulate my hon. Friend on the drafting of the Bill, which is very long for a Private Member's Bill, but he has explained that he has not personally written every Clause but has had some help from the working party.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) attacked the Home Office about some of the drafting. The Bill may be returned to us from another place for our consideration of certain Lords Amendments, but there is still time for us to consider them and for the Bill to be passed before this Parliament ends.
  I welcome the Bill, believing that, on the whole, the House lags behind what many members of the public want done about many trades such as this. It is not that we are imposing restrictions and regulations on certain trades, but that 90 or 95 per cent. of the members of those trades want regulations because they are honest and good traders and because only a small number evade their responsibilities. For example, a Bill about cruelty to horses is now before the House and I have a Bill about motor driving establishments—90 per cent. of which want it—which has not so far found unanimity in the House and whose Second Reading is down for later this day.
  These Measures show a general desire throughout the country for tidying up the law. Reputable merchants will have no difficulty about complying with these regulations and it is only a small section which will. It is no great hardship for a trader to keep the very minimum of books for which the Bill asks. When we all have to pay Income Tax, and so on, a trader who does not keep books or accounts does not deserve to be in business.
  This is an opportune time for this Bill. There is great interest throughout the country in scrap merchants. I am told—I have watched them myself—that the activities of a firm of scrap merchants going by the name of Steptoe and Son are followed by hundreds of thousands of people through another medium. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with the Bill fairly fully. I should like to know from her whether she thinks that there
  1750
  is anything in it which will prevent the activities of Steptoe and Son from continuing, or whether she believes that with what skill they have they will be able to comply with the regulations. The Bill is not to become law until April, 1965 so that we may have a rather long time before we see how they deal with it.
  This is a good Bill for dealing with transactions in scrap metals, a commodity in which it has been easy for dishonest people to deal. There is one offence in particular—we have not seen so much of it lately—of cutting old lead from church roofs at night—which is sacrilegious—which has been easy for the thieves because no one has been in the churches at night and because the metal could not be traced. If the Bill does something to stop that kind of theft, it with have been worth while.
  I conclude by again congratulating my hon. Friend and also the hon. Member for Luton on the interest he has taken in trying to improve the Bill and on getting an Amendment accepted, which is not always easy. I hope that the Bill will receive Home Office support.
  1.56 p.m.
  Mr. Howie: I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) on his Bill's having reached this stage very nearly unscathed. It has been improved in one or two ways today. A number of criticisms have been voiced about one or two aspects of it and I hope that when the Bill reaches another place there will be at least sympathetic consideration of some of those criticisms. I very mud hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss them again.
  I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman and with the general notion underlying his Bill every success.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: The attention of the House and the public was drawn to this matter not only by the activities of Mr. Steptoe, but by those activities, particularly after the war, which resulted in the roofs of many buildings which were lying vacant—not only churches where the crime was sacrilegious and therefore more serious—being stripped of their lead. The lead found its way to scrap metal dealers, who themselves were in

  1751
  the unenviable position of finding it difficult to trace the origin of the lead which they wished to purchase.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) has tackled an immense subject in a Bill which has meant the repeal of many Acts. Like many other hon. Members, have discussed this matter with some of the trade associations. It is interesting to note that the Bill has not only the approval but the active support of many of the trade associations who have been working under very old laws, and, for that reason, under great disadvantages.
  The Bill now makes their position much clearer. A classic illustration of the sort of difficulty is that a scrap metal dealer was previously prohibited from buying from private persons. In other words, even if he knew that the private person had come by the metal in a perfectly orthodox and reasonable way, he could not purchase it.
  This Measure, which I hope the House will approve, will overcome a large number of real difficulties which the trade was facing. I have always regarded the trade as falling into two categories—the large main dealers who are well known to us all, and the small man who is known as a totter. He goes round with his barrow, but he has become a less frequent visitor to many parts of London. At one time he was quite a common figure with his horse and cart, or with his barrow, and he collected old baths and pieces of scrap metal.
  One of the great advantages of the Bill is that it does not attack the small man, provided he runs his business in an orthodox and reasonable way. It is not unreasonable that a man in a small way of business should keep a check on his trading activities. If he does, and if he is stopped in the street and asked where he obtained his metal, he will be able to say that he purchased it from such and such a source, and that he has a receipt for it. That will help him considerably, because he will not then be regarded as a receiver of stolen goods. It will also help the police in making their inquiries.
  Many of the thefts are from buildings which are unoccupied. Often the theft
  1752
  is carried out by a worker in a builders' merchant's yard. The stolen articles are not listed in the firm's books, but are passed out as it were through the side door. If the Bill is passed, I think that everyone in the trade will feel that by having to keep the records suggested in this Measure, they will have much more protection than they had in the past.
  I should like to pay a final tribute to my hon. Friend. On looking at the Schedule, I realise that he must have done an enormous amount of research on ancient Acts of Parliament. My hon. Friend has consolidated all these old Acts into a Measure which is not only worth while, but has the support of the trade, and I am sure that it will have the support of everybody who is interested in this subject.
  2.2 p.m.
  Miss Pike: I have been anxious not to intervene unnecessarily during the course of the debate because I know that hon. Members are anxious to proceed with other business. I should, however, like to take this opportunity to record our appreciation of the manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) has conducted the Bill through its various stages, and to congratulate him on the efficiency with which he has handled some of its complicated provisions, and on his initiative in introducing this useful and necessary piece of reform.
  The White Paper published last week made it clear that it is the constant concern of the Government to maintain and improve the defences of society in the war against crime. The object of the Bill is to renew those defences on a particular front by strengthening the means for the prevention and detection of thefts of metal, and we warmly welcome the improvements that it seeks to make.
  As hon. Members have said, there is nothing radically new in the Bill. Provision for the registration of old metal dealers and the keeping of records of dealings in old metal was made as long ago as 1907, and other parts of the present law date back to 1861. It has been apparent for some time, however, that these provisions are no longer adequate for present-day conditions.

  1753
  The need for an improvement in the law was first felt forcibly in the immediate post-war years when the scarcity of metals made them especially attractive to thieves and receivers. The Report of the official Working Party on which the Bill is based describes fully the widespread incidence of thefts of metal at that time, and, as hon. Members have said this morning, there have been many impudent cases of the complete stripping of lead from the roofs of churches and old buildings. But those were only the more spectacular cases. The high price which the metal commanded made no amount too insignificant to be taken, and the cases reported ranged from the stripping of a church roof to the cutting of a few inches of overflow pipe from a water cistern.
  The attraction of lead for the petty criminal at that time was graphically illustrated in the Working Party's Report by the extract of evidence from the Chief Constable of Lancashire. He said:
  "It was during 1952 that we were particularly troubled by thefts of lead water cistern and waste pipes from houses. These attacks were usually upon a good number of houses in one neighbourhood and invariably during the hours of darkness. Two men committed 103 such offences in one locality before they were arrested."
  The Working Party noted that by the time of its inquiries there had been a material decline from the post-war peak in the number of thefts of metal, and of course there is reason to believe that, despite the trend in other types of crime, this decline has continued. But I do not think that that in any way invalidates the case for the rationalisation of tile law on the lines proposed in the Bill.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the decline in the theft of lead is due to the fact that at the time about which she is speaking lead was worth about 100 a ton, whereas today it is worth about half that sum.
  Miss Pike: I agree, but I was going on to say that that in no way invalidates the reason for having a Bill on the lines proposed here.
  The Working Party observed that
  "Notwithstanding the reduction in the total volume of metal stealing…we are convinced that this is a serious and continuing problem
  1754
  which calls for permanent machinery designed to give the police reasonably adequate powers of investigation and supervision."
  Our recent inquiries of the police have confirmed that view. Thefts of metal, though fewer, are still a continuing problem, and likely to remain so.
  The improved procedure for the registration and supervision of dealers which is provided by the Bill will, I am sure, be of benefit both to those who enforce this branch of the law, and to those who are subject to it. We have been particularly concerned with keeping the balance between these two necessities. It will assist the police and the local authorities because it makes their powers more precise and more effective. It will assist the dealer because it clarifies his position under the law, and in particular because it makes all dealers subject to the same law. I assure my bon. Friend that his favourite firm will be adequately protected. I am sure that it will be able to continue entertaining him in the way that it obviously does at the present time. It is an unsatisfactory feature of the existing law—and dealers with businesses in several areas are only too well aware of this—that the obligations upon the dealer at present vary from place to place according to whether the 1907 Act has been adopted, or some other control has been imposed by local Act.
  There is one other aspect of the Bill to which I think we should draw attention, namely, that apart from the positive improvement in the procedure for registration and supervision which it makes, it also cuts out much dead wood which is useless and in some cases an impediment to the trade. It gets rid of the unworkable provisions of the Old Metal Dealers Act, 1861, and it abolishes the out-dated and unnecessary additional restrictions imposed on marine store dealers by the Merchant Shipping Act.
  But most important of all, it repeals Section 13 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871. This provision at present prohibits a dealer from buying certain metals in any quantity less than the minimum prescribed in the Act—112 lb. in the case of lead, and 56 lb. in the case of other metals. The original purpose of this was to prevent the petty theft of metals by controlling the means of disposal of small quantities of stolen metal. But, as the Working Party's

  1755
  Report shows, it has long been felt that it imposed an undue restraint upon legitimate trade and the useful recovery of scrap, without effectively deterring thieves and receivers. I know that the disappearance of this petty restriction will be warmly welcomed by the trade.
  We had a useful discussion of the Bill in Committee, just as we have had today. Hon. Members have been properly concerned to see that the provisions of the Bill contained nothing which was unreasonable. I understand the anxieties of those who have entertained doubts about certain aspects of the Bill, but I think that the Amendments made today, and the discussions that we have had, will ensure that the Bill in its final form will do what we want it to do.
  The honest trader has nothing to fear from the Bill, and this fact is well understood by the trade. The Working Party defined its objective as the finding of ways and means to improve the present law so as to combine the maximum protection against crime with the minimum of interference with legitimate trade. The present Bill reflects that approach, and I am glad to support it.
  I conclude by once again congratulating my hon. Friend not only for introducing the Bill but for allowing it to go forward in its present form.
  2.10 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I join in the congratulations which have been offered to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) upon bringing the Measure before the House and getting it as far as this, but in two or three of the speeches that have been made I detected a somewhat unusual note, at this stage in our proceedings. There has been a suggestion that this is not a good and perfect Bill even now, and hopes have been expressed that when some other people consider it they will do more than the House has been able to do.
  I do not like sending a Bill to another place in that condition. I was hoping that the Under-Secretary would be able to tell us what attitude the Government adopted towards that aspect of the situation. If this is not the Bill that the promoters hope will finally
  1756
  become an Act—and the Government have given a general blessing to the Bill—it seems to me that we ought to know whether the Home Office regards the Measure, even now, as one which could safely be brought into operation and, if we are not to expect to have a Scrap Metal Dealers Bill in this House every year, how long it will be before these desired Amendments can be brought before Parliament so as to add to the safeguards which already exist.
  Undoubtedly, just after the war the stealing of metal was very common. During a weekend all the lead might be stripped off a church roof, and it would be quite impossible to find where it had gone and who had taken it from its proper place. If, with the fall in the price of lead, the temptation to commit that kind of crime no longer exists, I hope that nothing that we do today will make it easy for that sort of crime to be restarted.
  I would be a little surprised to think that Steptoe and Son should come into the Bill. I regard that very amusing programme as being part of the eternal conflict between old age and youth and I hope that nothing that happens as a result of this Bill will tend to make that programme less interesting, or the conflict between father and son less lively and less personal.
  I hope that before it reaches the Statute Book the Bill will be made as strong and as sound as possible in its general principles. I am only sorry that nothing has been said by the Under-Secretary to indicate how far she shares the doubts of the promoters.
  Sir D. Kaberry: I have expressed no doubts as to the validity of the Bill. I think that it is a very good Bill, and that it is well drafted. It was one or two remarks from hon. Members opposite that indicated the other point of view.
  Mr. Ede: Everybody may be proud of his own handiwork. The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) expressed the doubts to which I have drawn attention. I regret that the report of the Home Office did not indicate how far it accepted the view, not of the promoter but of the hon. and gallant Member, as to the

  1757
  need for some alterations in this Bill before it reaches the Statute Book.
  Miss Pike: I thought that I had made it clear that with the improvements that we have incorporated in the Bill this morning we now have a Bill which does what we set out to do, namely, maintain a fair balance between retaining security against the criminal while preserving the efficiency of the trade as a whole. I hope that I had made it clear that the Government endorse not only the intention of the Bill, but its shape after this morning's deliberations.
  Mr. Ede: May we take it that whatever may be the doubts of the hon. and gallant Member for Eye about the perfection of the Bill, the hon. Lady, as Under-Secretary, has no such doubts, and that if the Bill goes unamended through another place she will rejoice in its being put on the Statute Book, no matter what may be the feelings of the hon. and gallant Gentleman?
  2.18 p m.
  Mr. Doughty: I shall speak very shortly. Perhaps I shall hold a balance between the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I am sure that ii there are any doubts my hon. Friend will look into them. If there is any need to improve the drafting I am sure that it can be improved in another place, and that everybody will then be happy.
  I suppose that I have a closer association with the criminal classes than most other hon. Members here today, although I am probably not very popular with criminals. One rule to remember is that there are no thieves unless there are receivers. A person who steals lead from a church roof—and this is extremely common; in the criminal classes it is referred to as "bluey"—or from the roofs of blocks of houses which have been closed for redevelopment, has to find someone who is willing to buy it from him.
  A local authority often purchases a whole area and fences it off, with the intention of building something on it later. By the time the builders come along, however, nothing is left but bricks and mortar. That could not happen if there were not receivers. A new police station is being built in
  1758
  Brighton, and already copper pipes for it have been stolen before the building has been finished. Since I have to deal with the alleged thieves next week I will say no more about that.
  I will express no views as to those upon whom the loss will fall in such cases, but it is right to point out that not only derelict and old buildings are affected. Valuable metals disappear from the sites of buildings under construction. They have to find their way to a scrap metal dealer or some other dealer—often referred to as a general dealer—before any cash comes to the thieves. It the Bill prevents that it has my blessing, whether or not its wording can be improved.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed

TRADING STAMPS BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
TRADING STAMPS BILL

  New Clause.—(RESTRICTION ON CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS.)
  No proceedings for an offence under sections 2, 4, or 5 of this Act shall be instituted in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.—[Sir H. Legge-Bourke.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  2.20 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): With this new Clause it might be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 12, in Clause 5, page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (3).
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to you for your suggestion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would not mind if we also discuss Amendment No. 10, in Clause 5, page 3, line 20, after "posted", insert "(a)", and No. 11, in page 3, line 23, at end insert
  "and
  (b) a catalogue giving such particulars as will enable customers readily to ascertain the number of trading stamps which is required for the purpose of enabling a person to obtain any article or thing described in the catalogue".

  1759
  I have not had an opportunity of consulting the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) on the matter, and I do not know how the House would feel about that.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Amendment No. 10 will not be selected. I do not know whether the House would wish to discuss Amendment No. 11 now or whether it would prefer to leave the matter as it is. Perhaps it would be better to leave the matter as it is.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Perhaps I should remind the House of the penalties involved in respect of an offence under Clauses 2, 4 and 5. Under Clause 2 the penalty for a promoter of a trading stamp scheme is £100 and for another person £20. Under Clause 4 the penalty shall not exceed £100, and Clause 5 provides for a fine not exceeding £20.
  There is a precedent for this Clause, which has the effect of ensuring that the Director of Public Prosecutions, if he himself has not taken the initiative, shall give his consent to anybody to prosecute under the Clauses of the Bill. There is, in fact, more than one precedent for this. In the Prevention of Frauds (Investments) Act, 1958, Section 1(3) lays down:
  "Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not, in England or Wales, be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Board of Trade or the Director of Public Prosecutions."
  There is a similar provision in Section 14(7) of the same Act. I would here say that this new Clause does not include the Board of Trade, only because the Board of Trade, throughout the deliberations that we have had on this Bill, has been very anxious to opt out of any such responsibility in the enforcement of the Bill.
  As I think the House knows, on Second Reading I advocated to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade that I would by far prefer a form of registration of stamp trading companies or stamp promoters, but that suggestion was turned down, and it would seem to be a little unfair, as the Committee upstairs accepted the argument of the Board of Trade to keep it out of the administration of this Bill so far as that is possible, to bring it in
  1760
  only for this purpose. Hence, the very slight difference between the wording of my new Clause and the precedent which I have just cited.
  There is an even more exact and recent precedent than that of 1958, in the Protection of Depositors Act, 1963. Section 23(1) of that Act contains the same wording as in this new Clause, save for the fact that the Board of Trade is included in that Act whereas it is not in the new Clause. That, I feel, should be very dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, not least for his considerable interest in unit trusts in the past.
  The purpose of this new Clause is solely to avoid frivolous prosecution. It would seem to me that a fine of £100, or even £20, would, in certain cases, be quite a serious matter for anybody against whom a charge was brought. It is not the sort of thing that a person would just accept quickly in order to get rid of the case. It is something that he would have to fight in his own interests. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong that any opportunity should be given for a frivolous prosecution.
  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) for agreeing that his Amendment, No. 12, should be discussed now, because the main anxiety that I have is that the principal opportunity for frivolous prosecution arises out of the question of catalogues in shops. My hon. Friend is seeking to take subsection (3) out of Clause 5 of the Bill, and this goes a very long way to meet the purpose that I have in mind in moving this new Clause.
  I do not know what his attitude will be to Amendment No. 11, but there is a difference between the two, and what is particularly unfortunate about subsection (3) as it stands is that the catalogues are in the plural and it would mean that if any change in price had taken place since the catalogue was printed, every catalogue would have to be amended, if the person putting them on view in his shop, or making them available in his shop, was to avoid the possibility of prosecution and a fine of £20 under Clause 5.
  I will refrain from commenting on Amendment No. 10 because that point

  1761
  is avoided in that Amendment. Therefore, if my hon. Friend can give me an assurance that he has no intention whatever of simply raising a discussion on his Amendment and then seeking to withdraw it, and that he really means to take subsection (3) out of Clause 5, I shall feel that he has gone a very long way to meet the case, although I think that it would be as well if we could lave the advice of the Minister of State on this matter regarding my three precedents. I am wondering whether those precedents have been overlooked in the advice that has been given so far. If they have, I think that they ought seriously to be reconsidered. If we cannot do that today, perhaps some indication could be given that when the Bill goes to another place it could be given further consideration there.
  What I am anxious to avoid is frivolous prosecution as a result of a minor error, perhaps through no deliberate fault of the person concerned, and to ensure that in order to prevent frivolous prosecution, but failing any other means of stopping it, the Director of Public Prosecutions has to give his approval, if he himself has not already taken action.
  Mr. Antony Buck: Speaking on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and the other sponsors of the Bill, and in connection with the later Amendment which we are discussing with this new Clause, I can at once give my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) the assurance that he is seeking. It is the intention of the promoters of the Bill not merely to move the Amendment which is down in page 3, line 26, to leave out subsection (3), but to pursue this matter.
  I have, of course, talked to my colleagues about this point. I shall not say too much about it, or I shall, no doubt, get into trouble with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) for mentioning the discussions that there may have been. It is, however, the intention of the promoters of the Bill to pursue that Amendment.
  That, I hope, may dispose of the new Clause which my hon. Friend is seeking
  1762
  to promote. Speaking for myself, I would in any event oppose this new Clause going into the Bill. It is, in my view, fundamental to our legal system that all of us have a right to prosecute for a criminal offence. This is one of the basic concepts of our whole system. We do not have to rely upon the police, who are, of course, immensely reliable, but they are under no obligation to prosecute in any case.
  It is a safeguard of our system that any of us can carry forward a prosecution as we wish. It has been established law now for many years, certainly since a leading case in, I think, 1811, and it has been described by the judges in the sort of terms which I have just repeated to the House. It is regarded as important.
  2.30 p.m.
  It is perhaps of some interest to refer to the evidence which was given by the former Attorney-General, now the Lord Chancellor, to the Select Committee on Obscene Publications, when this whole matter was considered. I think that it may help my hon. Friend if one referred to the part of the memorandum which he presented. My hon. Friend said that there are precedents for this. He has recited two Acts with three precedents, but there are also far more. As the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, as he then was, pointed out to the Select Committee:
  "There are some eighty statutory provisions restricting the right to institute criminal proceedings without the consent of the Attorney-General. Almost half of these eighty restrictions were imposed during and immediately after the war, generally in connection with the enforcement of controls which were of necessity drafted in wide terms and the object of the restriction was to ensure the proper enforcement of the policy underlying the imposition of the control. Apart from those cases it does not seem to me to be possible to deduce any intelligible principle on which the Legislature may be thought to have acted: the list of restrictions is full of anomalies and even absurdities."
  The Attorney-General went on:
  "In my opinion the problem should be approached on the footing that it is a fundamental principle of English criminal law that proceedings may be instituted by private individuals, and accordingly that the right to prosecute is unrestricted, unless some very good reason to the contrary exists."
  In my view, it is difficult to say that it does exist or that there is any very

  1763
  good reason at all for here departing from this fundamental rule.
  My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of vexatious prosecutions. I want the House to consider whether there are likely to be large numbers of vexatious prosecutions. Who is to indulge in them to the detriment of the trading stamp companies? For instance, will Sperry & Hutchinson indulge in prosecutions against Green Shield stamps? Of course not. If there were to be any examples of petty prosecutions of this sort being indulged in then the person indulging in the practice would have to watch his position very carefully. If a prosecution were shown to be vexatious and frivolous it would be thrown out and the person bringing the action would be liable to pay the costs. This, I suggest, when one is considering fines of this character, is quite a sufficient sanction to prevent vexatious prosecutions for the protection of the trading stamp companies.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I was very interested in the passage which my hon. Friend read out from the Attorney-General's view. I felt it was a little inconsistent. In an Act passed as recently as the Protection of Depositors Act, 1963, it was thought desirable to write it in. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can advise me whether there is a particular distinction in his mind between this legislation and the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act.
  Mr. Buck: I will come to the two Acts which my hon. Friend has mentioned. I approach the problem from the point of view that we should not depart from the normal procedure unless there is very good reason. At a later stage we shall have the infinite advantage of hearing from the Minister of State as to the two Acts which my hon. Friend mentioned. Perhaps I can say this about them. The first was the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act, 1958. That, I think, is different from the Bill under discussion by virtue of the fact that this was a Measure, as I understand, which really put under the broad supervision of the Board of Trade the whole question of people indulging in trading in investments.
  If in the Bill under consideration today we had gone in for the registra-
  1764
  tion procedure, which was mooted at one stage, there might be a stronger parallel between this Measure and the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act. That is a very different Measure from this Bill which does not empower the Board of Trade to do anything, and, a fortiori, the Director of Public Prosecutions is right outside its ambit. Therefore, I think it is quite different from the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act.
  I think that the same consideration applies to the Protection of Depositors Act, 1963. This is a Measure on an altogether different scale from the Bill we are considering today. I should have thought that one difference which was apparent to the House was the nature of the penalties imposed under the Protection of Depositors Act and the sort of penalties with which we are concerned here. Here, we are concerned with fines of £100 and £20. Under the Protection of Depositors Act, if I recall it correctly, the person guilty of an offence under Section 1 of that Act is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years. In these circumstances, I would have thought that there would obviously be a case for a greater degree of supervision. As the result of bringing vexatious or frivolous prosecutions under that Act there are serious consequences which do not arise under this Bill.
  I think that the two Acts are different, and I do not think that there is any strong case for making the Director of Public Prosecutions liable to consider all the papers in such prosecutions. Is it really fair on the Director of Public Prosecutions, who, after all, is an extremely busy man in the fight against crime on a big scale, to ask him to consider the papers in a case proposed to be brought because of the contravention, or alleged contravention, of a statement required on the face of a trading stamp, or, indeed, a failure to put something into a catalogue which should have been in it or to ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to go into a case which involves a failure to display sufficient information in a shop. In my humble submission, this would be going outside the ambit of the serious matters which are usually and more properly within the purview of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  1765
  We are also discussing with this new Clause the Amendment which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), in Clause 5, page 3, line 26. to leave out subsection (3). The hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall that it was remarkable for many features. Perhaps the most remarkable was the extraordinary and quite excellent expedition with which matters were considered, at any rate towards the end of the day. I think that it would be conceded by the House that perhaps it was not appropriate that this subsection should have been included in the Bill and that it would be conceded that, as worded, the subsection raises certain difficulties. It says:
  "Catalogues shall be placed in such a position as to be conveniently read by and freely available to customers."
  This is not a clear subsection to have in the Bill. What precisely does it mean? It would seem probable that a retailer would have to have an unlimited supply of catalogues in his shop—up-to-date catalogues—and would have to make them available very easily and readily to customers in whatever numbers they come into the shop. I submit to the House that this would be an unconscionable burden on a retailer and would put a considerable burden on the trading stamp companies if ail the time they had to supply a flowing stream of catalogues which were always up to date. This would seem to be too great a burden to place on retailers and stamp trading companies. It is the hope of the promoters that the House will see fit to delete that provision from the Bill for the sake of both the retailer and the stamp trading company and also of the clarity of the Bill generally.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): First, I should like to explain the interest of the Government in relation to this Bill. It is simply to see that we have a workable and sound Bill.
  With regard to the new Clause, moved so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), the ordinary rule in England and Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) said, is that anyone may prosecute. A restrict-
  1766
  tion to prosecutions by or with the consent of he Director of Public Prosecutions is appropriate where the offence is inherently likely to provoke malicious or oppressive prosecutions, or it is desired to have some control of policy in ad ministering the Act in question.
  Against these criteria we have to measure the new Clause. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely has said about it I entirely understand. The purpose is that vexatious prosecutions should be avoided. We have considered the matter as carefully as we can and are fully satisfied that Clauses 2, 4 and 5, if offended against, would not appear likely in any way to attract the vexatious prosecutor. Nor do we think there would seem to be any real probability of such discrepancies in their application as to call for any central control. In other words, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend fully upon that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester went through the precedents raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely in general, and to some extent he went through them in particular. What he said was very largely an answer to the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely. I notice my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely acknowledging it. Perhaps it would be of assistance to him if I added a few words.
  I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester so clearly said but there is another point in relation to the two Acts which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely mentioned, and I should like to answer this shortly. This relates to Section 1(3) of the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely was right to remind us that that was a recent Act, but it was also a consolidation of an Act of 1939. My hon. Friend "pulled my leg" a little in a complimentary fashion about my former experience when earning an honest living in business. I remember that Act well, because under its framework the Board of Trade exercised its control of the type of investment organisation with which I was concerned.

  1767
  Under Section 1(3) of that Act, prosecutions are limited to the Board of Trade and the Director of Public Prosecutions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said, this was done not only because of the gravity of the matter, but because of the complexity of the cases which would be forthcoming under that Act. Precisely the same point applies to the Protection of Depositors Act, with which, as Economic Secretary, I was also concerned.
  In our opinion, the general argument that the ordinary rule in England and Wales should be that anyone may prosecute is in no way upset by the introduction of the Bill, and, in our judgment, the precedents quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely would not be right to follow. As I have said, we do not believe in any way that the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will attract vexatious prosecutors.
  In regard to the question of the deletion of subsection (3) of Clause 5, I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. We are in favour of the maximum amount of information being available to the consumer. But the subsection is open to objection, principally because the whole liability is placed on the retailer rather than on the stamp company which will be issuing the catalogue.
  I should be willing to consider something on the lines of the Amendment which has been tabled or a new subsection, but it is bound to be complicated because of the need to establish a division of liability between the retailer and the stamp company. We feel that catalogues are in any case likely to be available. After all, the catalogue is the prime instrument by which the companies obtain business. The catalogues constitute the chief incentive or attraction to collect stamps, and they must be made available, otherwise the efforts of the stamp companies to attract people to shops where stamps are available would be ineffective.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely will think it right not to press the new Clause. I should then be happy to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, one of the sponsors of the Bill, and would
  1768
  hope to see subsection (3) of Clause 5 taken from the Bill.
  2.45 p.m.
  Mr. George Darling: I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) that we must make sure that we do not include in this or any other Statute frivolous causes for legal proceedings. Therefore, it is our duty in looking at the Bill at this stage to exclude all imprecise, unreasonable or unacceptable offences. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that that is the way to tackle the problem, and not by depriving, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) pointed out, the aggrieved citizen of his right to prosecute where he has a legitimate grievance against any of the companies which may be involved.
  As to the Amendment, I should be somewhat reluctant to lose the subsection, for reasons which will be apparent when we come to Amendment No. 11. However, if we are to be consistent the subsection must go out, because, as the Minister pointed out, it would lead to this being a defence in a way that we do not want it to be. In any case, it is rather frivolous in the way it is drawn—using the word "frivolous" in the way we have been discussing it so far.
  Therefore, I also appeal to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely to withdraw his new Clause, and then I think we could agree with the Amendment to Clause 5.
  Mr. Reader Harris: I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) was right in the proposition he put forward. As a member of a company which has an interest in a company which uses trading stamps, I wonder who the people are who are likely to take action under these Clauses. Who are the people who are likely to institute proceedings? I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) was being a little naïve in suggesting that those likely to institute proceedings are stamp companies, against other stamp companies. Those are not the people who will start malicious prosecution. Such proceedings will be started by retailers or firms which do not issue stamps.

  1769
  This Bill was got off the ground with the utmost malice. It was not brought forward at the request of the public. It was produced to appease firms which do not issue stamps. This does not mean that I am against the Bill. Indeed, I shall support it. I believe that the provisions which it lays down are ones with which any reputable stamp company would be able to comply, and with which it would want to comply.
  Mr. Buck: As one of the sponsors, I can give an assurance that in supporting the Bill I have no intention of appeasing anybody. That has been far from my thoughts. My only intention has been to put on the Statute Book something which will be useful to the small trader and the public.
  Mr. Harris: I am not saying that the Bill will not have its uses. I am merely saying that it was got off the ground originally to appease the people who do not issue stamps. Those are the people who could, if they wanted to, institute malicious prosecutions. They probably will not do so if we draw attention to the matter forcibly in this House. I should have liked an undertaking from the Minister of State that the Board of Trade will watch the matter to ensure that there are not malicious prosecutions.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: As one of those who have taken an interest in this matter from the beginning, I should like to support what has just been said. Our interest in the matter from the beginning has been that we do not think stamp trading is in the interest of the consumer. There has been no question of appeasing anybody. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) has been rather more offensive than is his normal nature in suggesting that.
  Mr. Harris: I would not want to be offensive. We must accept that there are different views on the subject of stamp trading.
  I notice that Clause 5 (2), which, I gather, will remain in the Bill, states:
  "A notice under this section shall be posted in such a position as to be conveniently read by customers."
  I should have thought that this was a matter on which there could be a wide variety of opinion and that if anybody wanted to start vexatious litigation, it would not be difficult to pick on some-
  1770
  thing like this and make something of it. Clauses such as these have considerable nuisance value.
  I shall support the Bill for the reason which I have given. I would not want to impute any unworthy motives to anyone promoting the Bill, but I still think it right to make the point that the Bill was not clamoured for by the public. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely has been asked to withdraw his new Clause. I shall be sorry if he does. I have made my point. However, I would ask the Minister of State whether he will give an undertaking that he will watch the position and ensure that the Measure is not abused.
  Mr. du Cann: May I draw attention to the fact that, in practice, we expect that proceedings under the Bill would normally be taken by local authorities or by the police, who have substantial experience in criminal prosecutions of this sort. But I do not rule out the possibility that in a major case a Government Department, for example, the Board of Trade, might institute proceedings if they thought that the public interest demanded it. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by what I have said.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: We have had a useful debate, which has clarified beyond doubt what will be the situation under the Bill. May I take up one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), which was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris)—who are likely to take advantage of any opportunities under the Bill? There is one of our hon. Friends who might take the opportunity, judging by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) on Second Reading. Perhaps I may quote from what he said:
  "A few weeks ago I thought that I would start a one-man campaign against the stamp companies by going to filling stations where stamps were given and asking for a discount instead of stamps. But this was refused and so I asked for a stamp catalogue and a stamp book in which to put the stamps. I thought that I could fill my car with catalogues and books and so operate a campaign in that way. But I came to the conclusion that I could not get enough people to do the same, and so I dropped the idea."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 699.]

  1771
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland enjoys his own speeches quite as much as does the House, and he was in terrific form that afternoon and made one of the most enjoyable speeches in the Second Reading debate. He might perhaps have been more successful in his campaign if the Bill had become an Act before he started his exercise.
  We have had pointed out beyond peradventure that it is not the desire of the promoters of the Bill, still less of the Government, to make it easy for people to indulge in vexatious litigation. The point made by my hon. Friend that there are always the courts to be considered in these matters was a good point, and that is probably as good a deterrent as any. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth—and I hope that he will not take this amiss—that I prefer to let Mr. John Bloom look after himself on this matter.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Clause.—(As TO CERTAIN EXISTING ENACTMENTS.)
  (1) For the purposes of the enactments referred to in subsection (2) of this section neither a trading stamp nor a stamp book to which this Act applies shall be regarded as a bill of exchange, promissory note, debenture or security by reason only that it contains or evidences, either expressly or impliedly, an obligation on the part of the promoter to pay money.
  (2) The following are the enactments referred to in the preceding subsection:—

  Bills of Exchange Act 1882;

  Stamp Act 1891;

  Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act 1946;

  Exchange Control Act 1947;

  Companies Act 1948;

  Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958.—(Sir H. Legge-Bourke.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.0 p.m.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Since Second Reading considerable thought has been given to the matter contained in the Clause. It seeks to ensure that everybody understands what is the status of a single trading stamp
  1772
  and what is the status of a filled book of trading stamps. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), who is sorry that he cannot be here this afternoon, is deeply grateful, as I am, for two letters written by the Parliamentary Secretary on 25th March and 21st April. These have greatly clarified the situation, but it is only right, in order to get it on the record, to ask for confirmation of these statements.
  I understand that a single trading stamp does not fall into the definition of a bill of exchange by Section 3(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, particularly because it is not an unconditional order to pay, nor is it addressed by one person to another named, nor is it indicated with any reasonable certainty. Moreover, trading stamps, in addition to giving entitlement to the payment of money in certain circumstances, also give an option to receive goods. That rules out a single trading stamp from being regarded in any way as capable of definition as a bill of exchange.
  I understand that a trading stamp would not fall within the definition of a promissory note under Section 83(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, and under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1891. This is because it is not an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum of money. Moreover, in relation to the Stamp Act the courts have held that a promissory note does not include an instrument containing the promise to pay forming one of a number of stipulations. This, therefore, rules out the single stamp from being treated as a promissory note. I shall have a word later to say about the book of stamps.
  Finally, there is the question of debentures. I understand that in order to fall within the very wide definition once given in a well-known case, Levy v. Abercorris Slate and Slab Co., 1887, trading stamps must create or acknowledge a debt, and that it is most improbable that they could be held to do any such thing. These are the points which I wish to have publicly confirmed in respect of a single stamp.
  I come to the empty stamp book. I understand that this would not be caught by any of these Statutes referred to in the new Clause. There is no sum of money expressed in respect of which a duty can be charged.

  1773
  I turn to a filled stamp book as distinct from an empty book. It might possibly be regarded as a debenture or a security, but I gather that the advice given both to the Government and to the stamp companies is that a filled stamp book would not be regarded as a debenture or a security if only because it does not create or acknowledge a debt, which could not arise until at the earliest the holder has opted to receive cash. Moreover, in considering whether a filled stamp book could be regarded as a promissory note, I understand that the question which arises is not whether the document is materially altered—that is, the empty book—when the trading stamps are stuck in, but whether the book and the stamps together operate as a promissory note. In order to establish that they should be so regarded we should have to show that there was a promise to pay. Under Clause 3 of the Bill the obligation to pay is statutory without the need for there being any promise by the promoter. We congratulate the promoters of the Bill on having drafted Clause 3 in that way.
  There is also the question of duality of purpose. I understand that cases have been decided that a document which is substantially anything more than a promise to pay is not a promissory note. A stamp is more than a promise to pay. There are alternative ways of payment by which the stamp can be honoured.
  I hope that we shall perhaps be given public confirmation that what I have said is correct, and perhaps the Minister of State will give a little further indication that even though, as I understand it, the legal advisers of the stamp companies and of the Government are agreed on these points, the matter will be watched. I hope that the Government will give an indication that if it is proved by a test case, or in some other way to be taken later, that this agreement was not as strongly founded as we hoped, then consideration will be given to tidying the position up. It is in order to establish those points that I put the Clause on the Order Paper.
  Mr. du Cann: I need not detain the House on the new Clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) indicated in what he was good enough to say, particularly with reference to my hon. Friend the
  1774
  Parliamentary Secretary—and I will convey his thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary, which will be greatly apprecited—we have very carefully considered the whole of this matter. We have consulted not only our own legal advisers but those of the Inland Revenue and, in addition, we have taken the opinion of Parliamentary counsel. I am happy to be able to tell the House that they are all unanimous in their view that any amendment to the Bill on the lines proposed in the new Clause is totally unnecessary.
  I followed with the greatest care the catalogue which my hon. Friend was good enough to recite to the House, and I can assure him that his description of the legal position is entirely accurate in every single case. I need not, then, rehearse in full the answers to the questions which he asked me. I can tell him that his description of the position is exactly correct.
  My hon. Friend asked a final question: what would occur if ever any problem arose? We do not think that it is likely that any problem will arise. Nevertheless. I must answer the question, and I am happy to attempt to do so. If any problem ever arose in practice it is one which Governments would consider in relation to the Finance Bill, which is the appropriate context. It need not be considered in the context of this Bill. Having said that, I hope that my hon. Friend will regard it as possible to withdraw the new Clause.
  Mr. Buck: On behalf of the promoters of the Bill I thank my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) for the very close attention they have both given to this difficult point. The promoters have always been anxious that there should be no danger of trading stamps attracting stamp duty, which is the nub of the problem. It is very much to the advantage of the Whole House that this matter should have been gone into so thoroughly and that in the end there should have been such unanimity of opinion. We are most grateful to all concerned who have given such detailed attention to this difficult matter.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Member for Colchester

  1775
  (Mr. Buck) for what they have said. I hope that this matter is now clear beyond dubiety to all concerned.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Clause.—(VALUE OF TRADING STAMPS.)
  No person shall after the commencement of this Act issue any trading stamp, or cause any trading stamp to be issued, or deliver any trading stamp to any person in connection with the sale of any goods or the performance of any services unless the value of such stamp is not less than2½ per cent. of the cost of any such goods and services.—[Mr. F. Noel-Baker.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  As the Minister of State will know, in Standing Committee some hon. Members, particularly some of my hon. Friends, were extremely anxious to get a clear statement in the Bill which would have the effect of relating the value appearing on trading stamps both to money and to the gifts offered by the stamp companies and also of relating the value of the gifts offered to money. So far, Clause 2 merely says that each trading stamp must have—
  "on its face in clear and legible characters a value expressed in or by reference to current coin of the realm."
  I stress the words "a value".
  This is the difficulty. It was pinpointed effectively some weeks ago by one businessman—Mr. John Bloom—who is interested in trading stamps, when he openly threatened that he would issue stamps on which a nominal value would appear, which would be perfectly within the terms of the Bill as at present drafted, but which would bear no real relation to the value of the goods offered as gifts. To illustrate the point Mr. Bloom was making, a trading stamp company could put a value of 1d. on each stamp, but offer a gift worth £1 for 10 of them. This would have the effect of making nonsense of the face value and compelling the purchaser to take goods instead of redeeming the stamps for money.
  1776
  I should like to ask the Minister of State a direct question. It will help us very much if he can give us a clear answer. Is he satisfied that the Bill as it stands, particularly Clause 2, effectively secures to the purchaser an actual right to redeem stamps for a real cash value? If the hon. Gentleman could give us that assurance, it would help us a great deal. We believe strongly that a way should be found to compel the stamp companies to put some reality behind the cash value appearing on the face of their stamps.
  In the Clause we have found one way of doing this, which is to say that the value of no stamp may be less than 2½ per cent. of the cost of the goods and services in respect of which the stamp is issued. This is a reasonable figure. It is in line with current business practice. However, we are not necessarily wedded to this way of achieving the purpose. If the Minister of State could tell us of some other equally effective way of guaranteeing that the value appearing on the stamp is a real one related to the value of the goods offered and that, if the customer prefers not to take the gifts offered but to take cash, he will get value for his trading stamp, we should be satisfied.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has had a rather ingenious idea since the Committee stage. That is that the Bill should require the stamp companies, or retailers offering trading stamps, to sell trading stamps to anybody wishing to buy them for the cash value stated. We cannot think of any logical objection to this. If a trading stamp company maintains that a stamp which has a face value of 6d. is worth 6d., why should not the customer who wishes to buy it—thereby, perhaps, accelerating his right to buy a gift offered by the company—be able to pay 6d., get the stamp and add it to his collection? This would guarantee that the stamp really was worth 6d. and that the value on the stamp was the same as the stamp company claimed. I see no logical objection to this.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East may wish to develop his brilliant idea. If the Minister of State can assure us that by my hon. Friend's device, by the suggestion put forward in the Clause or in some other

  1777
  effective way, we can ensure that the value stated on the stamp is a genuine value, we would be prepared to think again. If the hon. Gentleman cannot give such an assurance, the whole value of the Bill would be destroyed. To allow trading stamp companies to put a fictitious value on a stamp makes nonsense of the purposes for which I and my hon. Friends who are sponsors of the Bill thought that it was designed.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has at various stages of the Bill pressed the point of view which he has just put forward. I fully understand what he wants to achieve. The recommendation of the Consumer Council, which was issued shortly after the Committee stage, underwrites to some degree the point of view put forward by the hon. Member.
  On the other hand, during the last few weeks we have had, the benefit of a publication entitled "Trading Stamps and Retail Competition", by Mrs. Christina Fulop. It covers a wide issue, but it makes the statement that
  "A specified cash option laid down by Parliament is not in the interests of consumers. The amount of the cash rebate should be determined by competition between trading stamp companies."
  We have, therefore, conflicting advice from those who have conducted the surveys.
  The hon. Member for Swindon wants to make certain that there is a real value in the sense of cash redemption. Throughout, our intention has been that the value which is put on the stamp, whether one-tenth of one-eighth of 1d., should be the value which, when the stamp is presented to a redemption shop or to head office, the stamp collector should subsequently receive from the stamp trading company, either directly or indirectly, in the way I have outlined. Under the Bill, the value on the stamp would thus be the real value in cash which the stamp collector would receive. That has been our intention, as, I am certain, the hon. Member for Swindon realises.
  We then come, however, to the legal aspect. I have discussed the matter with lawyers and the difficulty appears to be that the drafting of the Amendment is meaningless. The "value of such
  1778
  stamp" could be a cash value, a merchandise value or, in extreme cases, the value at which the stamp is purchased by the retailer. Another aim that we have set ourselves is that in no circumstances should we "kill" the stamp by any indirect method. There is danger that in its present form the Clause could do this.
  For instance, it is normal for a stamp trading company to issue stamps to the extent of 2½ per cent. of the value of purchases made in a shop, and the retailer can vary that at his own discretion. We must remember, however, that the stamp trading company obtains its goods at very low prices, as a result of bulk purchase, so that goods are purchased as a price lower than the equivalent value of the stamps purchased by a retailer from the stamp company. If we used this figure of 2½ per cent., we would allow no margin and would, indirectly, kill stamp trading as such.
  I think that this will still have to be left to competition. It is my view that if the stamp trading company puts too low a price on its cash redemption, its image, when suitably edited and reported in miscellaneous ways and looked at by outside sources, will deteriorate accordingly. It is, therefore, in the interests of the stamp trading company to make sure that its stamp redemption value is reasonable, otherwise the customer my place his custom elsewhere. My own inclination is still to leave this to competition.
  3.15 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I understand the difficulties expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) about the wording of the new Clause; that so many values can be attached to a figure of 2½ per cent., such as the wholesale value and the retail value, and the wholesale or catalogue value of the goods shown in the catalogue. At the same time, I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to recognise—because he has worked very hard on the Bill—that the new Clause seeks to put right one omission. The whole Bill is based on the assumption that the value printed on the stamps will be the real value, and that the value of the goods in the

  1779
  catalogue will be approximately equal in cash to the total value of the stamps submitted for redemption. But there is nothing to stop a man saying—and, indeed, Mr. Bloom himself recently announced—that he intended to publish stamps which had a very low cash value but offering very attractive prizes and other things on redemption.
  If that is done by Mr. Bloom, or by any stamp trading company, there is nothing to prevent the whole purpose of the Bill being circumvented because, since there is then not a real choice between the cash redemption and the value of the goods and the cash price printed on the trading company's stamps, no one would go for 2s. 6d. in redemption value when he might get an electric toaster. That is a real problem that the Bill still does not deal with.
  I recognise that the new Clause runs into difficulties, and I think that the Board of Trade, which has given great help, should have considered one further piece that drops into the framework—and my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) gave a trailer, as it were, to my proposal. If a man wants to buy stamps on a cash value he should be able to do so. Then, if a company were to say, "We will give you 2s. 6d. stamps" and a toaster is worth £2, the man could buy stamps for cash and get the toaster. If a stamp trading company is not to circumvent the procedure, we should put this final bit in the jigsaw.
  This would have other advantages. A woman living in a village might want to change from one shop to another. If at the first shop she had already obtained almost sufficient stamps to complete a book she could buy the rest for cash and then change to the shop next door where those stamps were not available. This would restore mobility to the shopper. It would restore greater freedom to the trader and he would not suffer by it because he would buy and sell the stamps. It would deal with what is a clear announcement of a circumvention of the intentions of this Measure by a man—and there may be other companies as well—that he is going to trade in this particular way.
  On the Second Reading of a new Clause I suppose it is possible to sug-
  1780
  gest other ways of effecting the proposals in that Clause, just as it is possible on the Second Reading of a Bill. I agree with the view that has already been expressed that it is a bad thing that a Bill should leave this House in the hope that it will be amended in another place, but here is a way of tackling the problem. If the Minister will undertake to give further consideration to this loophole, in the spirit of what has been said, perhaps it could be dealt with and the matter could be put right elsewhere, in which case it would have to come back to us for the Lords Amendments to be agreed to.
  Mr. Martin Madden: I am in a slight difficulty in the sense that we have before us a proposed new Clause and, at the same time, another proposition running around. It is a very interesting proposition, and certainly there is a problem to be faced. I am not sure that in large degree the way of facing it does not arise from the fact that the retailer is free to choose whether he wants to have stamps at all, and, if so, which company's trading stamps he wants to have.
  I think that I am right in assuming that the public—and, on the whole, we mean women—have some sense in their heads and can tell a good stamp, as it were, from a bad one. Surely, if we are interested in the topic at all we must assume that there is some demand from a substantial number of women for cash value instead of commodities in exchange for stamps. If, indeed, there are a large number of people who wish to have cash instead of commodities in exchange for stamps, I should have thought the matter would very quickly sort itself out in the normal processes of competition and that, in fact, anybody who put too low a cash value on the stamps would soon find that the retailers had no interest in having his stamps and the customers would not have any interest in having them either.
  The problem rests on the assumption that people want cash, and, if that is so, I am not at all certain that the matter will not look after itself.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member referred to "the normal processes of competition". Is it not a fact that there are only two companies operating

  1781
  trading stamp arrangements in this country, both of them very large? Were they to get together, it is not impossible that there would be no competition at all.
  Mr. Maddan: In that case, no doubt the hon. Member and I, with some wealthy backers, would have a very good opportunity to start another company. We are not setting this up as a Government monopoly.
  Mr. du Cann: If I may reply very quickly to the debate, which has been both interesting and useful, I hope that I shall be in a position to take the Committee a bit further in the matter. I say "quickly" advisedly, because I know that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are anxious to make progress with the Bill.
  I must tell the Committee that I am concerned about the new Clause. It is, in our opinion, unworkable, as I think the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was good enough to acknowledge and as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) pointed out. None the less, I entirely appreciate the interest of the hon. Member—I hope that I can say "my hon. Friend"—for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) in this matter. His interest is right and valuable, and I have a personal degree of sympathy with it.
  I was asked specifically by the hon. Member for Swindon if I could give an assurance in definite terms that the value of a trading stamp would be genuine value. I will give him an opinion that I think it certainly will be in part, for reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam and my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan), but it will be impossible for me to give him that assurance other than to say that I am satisfied with Clause 2 as currently drafted. We have looked at this matter with a degree of care. A great deal has been said about competition by my hon. Friends the Members for Hallam and for Hitchin, and questions have been asked about the extent to which people do, in fact, want to receive cash in exchange for stamps. I thought that my hon. Friends made valuable points about that.
  To sum up, I think that any form of control of the level of cash option would
  1782
  be extremely difficult to draft, if not totally impracticable. I repeat, on the other hand, that I understand the point which the hon. Member for Swindon is making. I am perfectly ready to give an undertaking that I shall look at the matter again in the light of what has been said, with particular reference to the entirely new suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), which, of course, we shall wish to consider with care. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not a point which I had considered in this particular context before the debate.
  I am satisfied with the position at present, and I think that it may be very difficult to do anything about it. I hope, nevertheless, that the hon. Member for Swindon will feel that I am giving an assurance which I mean and am fully prepared to carry through. I am very ready to look at the matter seriously. Moreover, in another place a Board of Trade Minister will be paying attention to the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think that this will make doubly valuable the assurance which I give.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: In view of the very generous assurance from the Minister of State, for which I thank him, both to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 1.—(RESTRICTIONS ON PERSONS WHO MAY CARRY ON BUSINESS AS PROMOTERS OF TRADING STAMP SCHEMES.)
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, after "company" to insert:
  "or an industrial and provident society".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would be possible to discuss with this Amendment the further five consequential Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn).
  It would have been possible to discuss, at the same time, the two Amendments in the, names of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Oram) and his hon. Friends, but I understand that these are not to be moved.
  Mr. Osborn: In Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) pointed out that Clause 1 appeared to discriminate against co-operative societies and made it impossible for them to engage in stamp trading if they wished. As I understand it, the Clause as it stands would not preclude a co-operative society from promoting a trading stamp scheme, if it wished to do so, by registering a company for this purpose under the Companies Act. However, there is no reason why co-operative societies should not be capable of trading in this way, and this series of Amendments covers the point. I hope that they will be acceptable.
  Mr. Darling: In one sentence, I thank the hon. Gentleman for carrying out the undertaking which was given in Committee.
  Mr. du Cann: May I take two sentences? First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) on his initiative which has led to the tabling of these Amendments. Second, from the Government's point of view, we think that these are wise Amendments, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) on having put them down.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 1, after "this", insert "and the next following".
  In page 2, line 4, at end insert:
  "industrial and provident society" means a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1893.—[Mr. J. H. Osborn.]

  Clause 2.—(STATEMENTS REQUIRED ON FACE OF TRADING STAMPS.)
  Amendments made: In page 2, line 13. after "company", insert "or industrial and provident society".
  In page 2, line 16, after "characters", insert:
  (a) in the case of a company.
  In page 2, line 18, at end insert:
  (b) in the case of an industrial or provident society, the name of the society.—[Mr. J. H. Osborn.]

  Clause 3.—(REDEMPTION OF TRADING STAMPS FOR CASH.)
  3.30 p.m.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out "holder" and insert:
  "other person who obtained it otherwise than by purchase or exchange in the way of trade and".
  Hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee will recollect that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) endeavoured to deal with this matter in a rather different way. In reply, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the effect of the Amendment in Committee
  "could be to deprive some people holding stamps legitimately of the right to cash redemption, because it would enable stamp companies to lay down conditions about who should be considered the rightful holder. It would limit the freedom of the original recipient to pass them to other people in a perfectly proper way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 11th March, 1964: c. 29.]
  That was a perfectly fair objection to make to that Amendment. Today's Amendment is an attempt to meet the objection.
  We all recognise that, as a result of the right which this Bill gives to trade in stamps, there will be a considerable opportunity and perhaps an additional attraction for a traffic in these stamps to build up, which can hardly be regarded as desirable. This has happened in the United States, where encashability has been permitted. It is done, I understand, by touting, often outside the big shops which are offering stamps to customers. A sort of spot check bid is made by the tout to get the stamps at a price below that for which they could be cashed. He then makes a profit by trading them in as though he were the holder, whether he goes to the redemption shop to buy a gift or to change them for cash. Most of us would agree that that is not a practice which should be encouraged by the Bill. It was for this reason particularly that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North moved his Amendment in Committee.
  I thought that the point which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North was perfectly fair when he said that we did not wish,

  1785
  as a result of trying to stop that practice, to prevent one neighbour from letting another neighbour have her stamps or perhaps even to do a swap between, say, Sperry and Hutchinson stamps and Green Shield stamps if they have been given some of the wrong house. It is for this reason that we have included in the Amendment the words
  "other person who obtained it otherwise than by purchase or exchange in the way of trade".
  No one would suggest that two neighbours indulging in the sort of interchange which I have just suggested would be indulging in trade. It would be an exchange, perhaps—cash might pass—but it would not be in the way of continuing trade. I understand that there is a fairly clear legal definition of what "in the way of trade" means. It is for this reason that we feel that this is a fair attempt to meet the objections of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
  I can well understand the anxiety which some hon. Members may have that the result of passing this Amendment will be that the stamp promoters will use it as a lever to decline to honour stamps when presented. While superficially one might say that that is within the bounds of possibility, I suggest that it would have to be a very unscrupulous and stupid operator who would do any such thing, because if he were to make a practice of it he must at once show that he is a person who will browbeat and take advantage of the ignorance of some of his customers for, I am afraid, a corrupt purpose. I do not believe that the average stamp operator would do this. I am sure that the most reputable ones would not think of doing it. They would know perfectly well that if they did so, they would rightly lose custom very quickly.
  I hope that I have succeeded in allaying the perfectly genuine fears of some hon. Members lest we give a loophole for traders not to honour the stamps. I do not want to do any such thing. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept my good intentions in this as absolutely sincere. I remind hon. Gentlemen that there are restrictions on the transfer of National Savings Certificates with exactly the same purpose in view. I honestly believe that the better stamp
  1786
  operators art as anxious as we are that the saver should derive full benefit from the scheme, preferably by redeeming stamps for goods, but also for cash value if the saver so decides, but that they do not wish to see the Bill resulting in the introduction of a parasitical growth on the scheme at the expense of stamp savers.
  Mr. Buck: This would be an interesting Amendment to discuss at great length, but we do not have very much time left and I shall try to confine my remarks to a narrow compass.
  It would be a very foolish Member who ever in any way doubted the good sense or sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). The promoters of the Bill and every other hon. Member recognise his complete sincerity. The fact remains that the Amendment provides a loophole whereby not the good and reputable trading stamp company but one which was none of these things could just refuse quite summarily to encash these stamps, saying of stamps which were sent in a perfectly regular and proper way, "We take the view that you must have got these by way of trade". If that happened, the person with, say, £5 worth of stamps would have to go to the trouble of bringing an action against the trading stamp company, and this would create manifold difficulties.
  We do not take the view that reputable stamp trading companies would do this, but we have to look at the broad picture which would contain a spectrum in which there were stamp trading companies of lesser repute. It would be wrong to have this tremendous loophole for such companies to be able to refuse stamps.
  There are other difficulties. There are the difficulties of the definition "by way of trade". Although this can be interpreted quite well legally, none the less one gets into difficulties of the sort of thing which might happen with the housewife who makes a £ or two by trading in stamps. There would be nothing very reprehensible about this, but she would be caught, and I do not think that my hon. Friend wants to catch the sort of person who is indulg-

  1787
  ing in exchanging Sperry and Hutchinson for Green Shield stamps and so on in a small way.
  The remedy of any mischief here is in the hands of the stamp companies themselves. If they want to prevent trafficking in stamps, their best remedy is to keep the cash value very similar to the value of the redeemable goods. If they do, the profitability in trafficking in stamps would be largely ruled out.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Can my hon. Friend tell me when stamp companies will be able to get £5 notes wholesale?
  Mr. Buck: That question was put to me in Standing Committee. If my hon. Friend ever finds the answer, perhaps he will let me know.
  Mr. du Cann: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, but I feel obliged to say a few words on this issue. I realise that it is not his intention, or the intention of the Amendment, to rule out transactions involving the sale or exchange of stamps between individuals which do not amount to a regular trading operation.
  Secondly, the real purpose of the Amendment is to discourage traffic in redeemable trading stamps on a commercial scale. I am not entirely convinced that that is necessarily so bad, because one can imagine a discounter of trading stamps, leading a normal respectable life, eventually becoming chairman of the discount market in London. I should like to think that people can get their commercial experience in that way in their early days. I do not think that that is as bad as my hon. Friend envisaged.
  The third point—and this is important and has properly been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck)—is that the distinction between small and large-scale trafficking, or what one might call private and commercial operations, is not easy to draw in legal terms. I am advised that it is doubtful whether it would be achieved by the words used in the Amendment.
  I think that the decision whether Clause 3 as at present drafted provides sufficient protection is a matter of opinion. I would not like to suggest that
  1788
  the Board of Trade has firm opinions on this particular matter, but, on the whole, we are not convinced that it would be reasonable to impose further conditions which would restrict the stamp collector's freedom to dispose as he wishes of stamps which have been properly delivered under a trading stamp scheme.
  Extensive though our researches have been, we have not been able to discover any American State legislation which has a similar provision. Whatever the feelings of the House about the objectives which my hon. Friend is seeking to achieve, I must point out that we are bothered about the Amendment. We think that it is not perfect. For that reason, whatever my hon. Friend's views may be, and whatever his intentions may be for the future, I hope that he will not see fit to press the Amendment this afternoon.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am not entirely convinced by what has been said. I realise that there is a difference of opinion about this matter, and I think that perhaps we need a little more time than we have today to sort this matter out. I do not want to hold up the passage of the Bill today. I hope, therefore, that it will be gone into in more detail in another place. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 5.—(DISPLAY OF INFORMATION IN SHOPS.)
  Amendment made: In page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. J. H. Osborn.]

  Clause 9.—(SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.)
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I beg to move, in page 5, line 46, to leave out "six" and to insert "twelve".
  The effect of the Amendment is to allow a further six months before the date on which the Bill comes into operation. I hope that the House will regard that as fair and sensible. I do not think that hon. Members realise the enormous expense involved in printing stamps. I am informed by as reliable an authority as I can find that one of the biggest

  1789
  companies in this country has to spend £100,000 on a three months' supply of stamps.
  The normal holding of stamps by the Green Shield company is as follows: the company itself holds about four or five months' supply; up to three months' supply is in the course of being printed; and its 20,000 retailers hold about a month's supply.
  During the course of a year the number of stamps issued by this company reaches the fantastic figure of 10,000 million. We must, therefore, realise that even if we provide a period of six months before the Bill comes into operation there will be a fairly substantial printing order still in the presses somewhere. In the circumstances it would be only fair to provide adequate time for stamp trading companies—and I do not confine my plea to Green Shield stamps—to have their stamps printed. I am not insisting that the period should be 12 months—perhaps it might be nine months—but at any rate it should not be less than nine months.
  Mr. Buck: On behalf of the promoters of the Bill I can say that the Amendment is acceptable. There seems to be a convincing case for having a longer period than six months. It is no one's intention to cause difficulties when such a vast quantity as 10,000 million stamps have to be printed. This question could be given greater consideration elsewhere, and it could be definitely decided whether the period should be 12 months or nine months. Subject to that point being agreed in detail, we are happy to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  3.47 p.m.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  My final remarks in Standing Committee were to the effect that the Bill then bore little resemblance to its original form. I was, naturally referring to the way in which it was written or printed. In spite of that, much of what the sponsors set out to do has been achieved. I suggest that it now achieves its objects in a much more satisfactory way than it did when it was presented two months ago.
  1790
  The first object of the Bill was to provide that a cash value should be placed on trading stamps. The second was to make stamps redeemable for cash, and the third was to ensure that catalogues published by promoters of trading stamp companies should state the cash value of a filled stamp book, so that consumers could readily compare the cash alternatives with the gift values in the catalogue. In an earlier Amendment we considered this question in more detail. Not only is it right that a consumer should know what he is entitled to in the way of stamps, but also what can be obtained for those stamps, when he is making purchases in a shop.
  The fourth object of the Bill was to see that adequate steps were taken to control and regulate the activities of stamp trading companies, and to ensure that they operated competently and were not set up with the deliberate intention of going bankrupt. Since the Second Reading debate one trading stamp company has gone into deficit.
  It was never the aim of the sponsors to abolish trading stamps as such. We merely sought to control and regulate them. We do not wish to take part in a battle between different sets of retailers. As I have said, the main aim of the Bill is to protect consumers and to ensure that retailers have a square deal, especially when confronted by trading stamp companies of the size referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke).
  We are all anxious to complete this stage of the Bill. All I wish to add is that it is wrong to say that the Bill has been watered down. We have got nearer half a loaf than a whole loaf in the sense of what we set out to do, but the definition of a whole loaf is a very difficult one to establish. But we have a half loaf, and we believe that the Bill will achieve the two main aims to which I have referred, to protect the consumer and to give the retailer a square deal. I therefore commend it to the House and hope that it will be given a Third Reading.
  3.50 p.m.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I am anxious not to detain the House particularly in view

  1791
  of other business which one of my hon. Friends is anxious to raise, but I should like, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and particularly those who have sponsored the Bill, to congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) on the hard work that he has done and for reaching this Third Reading. But I would add the fact that we are very disappointed because, as he says, the final version of the Bill bears very little relation to what he originally discussed with us.
  We think that this shows that even on an apparently innocent measure such as this there are grave dangers in all-party co-operation at least in the House of Commons as it is at present composed. We are disappointed with the Bill as it now is. We think that it is a meagre and ineffective Measure and that the Government have yielded too much to the pressure of vested interests and done too little to protect the consumer. We think that there is great force in the three major criticisms still advanced by the Consumer Council, that the Bill would not secure the financial reliability of the trading stamp companies, that it has not dealt satisfactorily, as I said earlier, with the level of cash option and that it has not dealt with the very serious dangers of misrepresentation.
  I hope that these grave defects will be put right at a later stage in another place, and that we shall see a very much improved Bill when it comes back to this House. With those qualifications, again I must say that on behalf of my hon. Friends and particularly the sponsors of the Bill, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who apologises that he has had to leave to speak at a meeting in Bath this evening, we congratulate the hon. Member for Hallam on bringing in the Bill.
  3.53 p.m.
  Mr. Maddan: I want to say only a few words. I was not able to be here on Second Reading but I have followed and read all the debates in great detail, and I welcome the opportunity to support the Bill and to be present during its Third Reading.
  There is one observation which I want to make, and which, I think, it is
  1792
  well to put on the record. As I said earlier, in a discussion on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), we have to take a view about the good sense and alertness both of the shopkeepers and of the public. I do not wish to see a trend growing up whereby both these classes of people are regarded as fools, or ignorant people, in need of care and protection. In passing this Bill, which, indeed, in the form in which it now is, has some very proper regulations to govern the actions of stamp trading companies, we are also in danger of extending the area covered by the skirts of the grandmother State.
  The grandmother State, I fear, is casting its shadow wider and wider in our national life. This is something which is contrary to business enterprise, and contrary, in my view, to the sturdy independence of the individual people of our country. We must always watch carefully that we do not turn people into a lot of mollycoddled and ignorant people, unable to stand up for themselves because we have cast such a penumbra over them in the form of the grandmother State's skirts.
  With that general proviso and warning, I welcome the provisions of the Bill, but I hope that we shall not perpetually bring forward Bills that really do not treat citizens with respect and which do not encourage in them the qualities which we wish to encourage.
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. Reader Harris: I wish to add my congratulations to those already expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) on producing the Bill, which has not been easy. There have been many discussions because my hon. Friend had to find a course which went half way between those who wanted to abolish stamp trading altogether and those who did not want anything done at all. Some of the opposition to stamp trading was, in the early stages, both hysterical and ridiculous.
  I have here a document produced by the committee set up to fight the abolition of resale price maintenance. The same people were very much against stamp trading. In an absurd document they said that stamp trading was a moral issue. What nonsense! Stamp

  1793
  trading is just another form of sales promotion. It may not be a good form. If it is not it will not last. The best arbiters in the matter are the public, but, subject to that, the right thing is that everything should be done to promote trade in the country.
  It is always strange to me that hon. Members on both sides of the House who are urging British manufacturers to go abroad and get stuck into aggressive selling hold up their hands in horror if some do it here. Our greatest danger at the moment is surplus capacity. Nevertheless, despite this the Government have just announced a record low unemployment figure of just under 400,000. This figure will only be maintained if the people whose job it is to manufacture and sell goods in fact sell them. This must be good for the public, and I therefore hope that we shall get the whole thing in proper perspective.
  As I say, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam on introducing the Bill. I am sure that he has done a good thing. I hope that whatever misgivings there may have been have now been allayed.
  3.58 p.m.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I join with other hon. Members who have praised my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) for introducing the Bill and on the way in which he handled it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) as well. I am sure that the Bill is a great deal better on leaving the House than it was when it was first introduced.
  It is a pity, perhaps, that the document to which my hon. Friend referred had not been published before the Bill went into Committee. It is the book published on retail trading competition under the auspices of the Institute of Economic Affairs. The Consumer Council should have a great deal of interest in the Bill and I feel that it would be well advised before saying anything more about the subject to study the Bill, because it is so much better now than when it was first brought in.
  Mr. du Cann: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and his hon. Friends who have worked extremely hard on the Measure. It is the opinion of the Government that it is a useful and workable Bill for the protection of consumers. I feel that the remarks of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) were much exaggerated. With these words, I am sure that we all wish the Bill every success in another place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND INCITEMENT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
3.59 p.m.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have only about 30 seconds in which to urge that the Bill be given a Second Reading. I have delivered, I think, 12 speeches on the subject in introducing a similar Bill nine times. In the circumstances, therefore, I hope that though the time in which we can discuss it this afternoon is so limited it will still be possible to have a vote upon the issue. I ask that that vote be taken now.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: We have seldom listened to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) make a speech of such brevity, but I can readily understand his reason for it. However, before we give the Bill a Second Reading, there are many things that I should like to say. I think that it would be a pity if the Bill were to pass, as it were, on the nod, without debate.
This is a Bill of very wide-reaching consequences, and there are many points of view—
It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 12th June.

ROAD SAFETY BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28th February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question again proposed.
Hon. Members: Object.
Debate further adjourned till Friday, 8th May.

STAMP EXEMPTIONS BILL
Order for Second Reading Read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 8th May.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 15th May.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (TRAVEL CONCESSIONS) ACT 1955 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

AGRICULTURAL NUISANCES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNLNG (LAND VALUES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY (RESALE) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

FOOTWEAR MATERIALS MARKING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

HOUSE BUYERS PROTECTION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

TRAVEL AGENCIES (REGISTRATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

EVICTION FROM RENTED DWELLINGS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

REDUNDANT WORKERS (SEVERANCE PAY) BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [14th February].
Hon. Members: Object.
Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

MOTOR VEHICLES DRIVING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 8th May.

NEW FOREST BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

ADULT EDUCATION
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
4.3 p.m.
Mr. James Boyden: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising the subject of grants for adult education following the decision of the Minister of Education to keep a standstill on grants to the extra-mural department of the Workers' Educational Association for the year 1964–65.
The Minister's answer so far has been that by extending capital aid to the residential colleges he thinks he is doing enough for adult education. But the grants to the residential colleges begin only in 1965–66. When I raised the matter on the Adjournment in July the argument was not that there was not adequate money but that the load on the building industry was too much to take these very tiny extensions of buildings in the residential colleges.
In any case, the argument for the extending of the residential colleges is
1798
hardly in the same category as that for grants for extra-mural and W.E.A. work. The Minister also argued in answer to questions put to him that as in the current year there has been some slight increase of grant to provide for another dozen full-time tutors and an increase in fees for part-time tutors, he cannot find any more money for the year ahead.
I was not particularly satisfied with the Minister's answer to me on the subject of the residential colleges. The original answer about extended grant provision for the current year for extramural classes and W.E.A. extensions was, I thought, unsatisfactory. It was an unfortunate answer in that there was a muddle and the question was only partially answered. However, having considered all the facts and the double answer which I got, I still remain of the opinion that the extension of grant was not satisfactory. So the present situation is far from satisfactory.
When Lord Eccles was Minister of Education, he was always hostile to adult education. He said that there were no votes in it, and he showed that obviously. The present Minister who is responsible for higher education has always beer friendly in his words, and so, too, has the Secretary of State for Education and Science. They say flattering words, very sweet words, but it seems to me that the more flattering the words are, the less is the money. Probably there is a new Boyle's law—that the amount of grant is in inverse proportion to the sweetness of the words. The facts are that the responsible bodies haw had very little more than words, words, words, and if they find the Minister's actions stale, flat and unprofitable, it is not surprising that they do so.
The recent standstill has brought a large body of protests. The general Secretary of the Workers' Educational Association, Mr. Harry Nutt, has said that standstill means contraction, and he has described the right hon. Gentleman's attitude as grudging and mean,
The secretary of the Universities' Council for Adult Education, Dr. Kelly, said:
"Faced as we are by a rising tide of demand, we feel a sense of frustration amounting almost to despair at this renewal of the standstill on Ministry grant for our work."

1799
These gentlemen and the people they represent are not given to anger or high praise.
The sum of money involved in this standstill is absolutely tiny. The total expenditure on responsible body work is 0·1 per cent. of the national expenditure on education, and the sum that the responsible bodies ask for is 0·01 per cent. The practical effect of increasing the tiny grant would be very much larger than the monetary value that it represents. Adult education must be voluntary, and it must be encouraged by the Government. Voluntary work becomes extremely difficult if costs become more important than voluntary action. This is the present situation which will face the responsible bodies in the coming years.
I quote a number of examples to give practical effect to this argument. In the North-East, for example, the Northern District W.E.A. has organised over the years a most successful linked week-end course. The Parliamentary Secretary and his inspectors have commented very highly on the quality of this work. The Northumberland miners have been particularly successful and assiduous in encouraging this type of work. If no more funds are available there will be restriction on the amount of work, and other trade unions and other unions, which might catch the enthusiasm of the Northumberland miners and other unions, are likely to have their applications turned down because insufficient money is available for classes. Organisations in the field are less likely to pioneer if they have questions of cost over-hanging them all the time. They will go for the existing classes which perhaps need strengthening rather than pioneering into science, social studies and other subjects. It is also easier to play for safety, especially when money is so acute.
In London the Director of Extra-Mural Studies has written to me to say that last year he was able to appoint two tutors under the slight thaw which took place but that if these tutors are successful the extra work which they will generate cannot be done and the extra classes cannot be taken because there will be no money to pay the part-time tutors. The Oxford Delegacy has
1800
raised private, voluntary money for a small residential centre in Oxford, which I think the Parliamentary Secretary would find highly commendable, with special courses for professional people, industrial relation courses and the orthodox liberal education courses. Oxford are in the position that, having got the college nearly ready, they will not be able to have the funds to provide the tutors to run the college.
The president of the Universities Council for Adult Education and the president of the W.E.A. said in a letter to The Times on 26th March—and this summarises the position very neatly—
"Previous experience demonstrates all too clearly that such a standstill, especially in the face of rising costs, means an actual diminution of planned work, a loss of momentum and a serious over-burdening of very limited administrative energies."
In March, 1963, the Labour Party very clearly went on record about adult education—and I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to page 33 of the Taylor Report, in which he will read:
"In a healthy democracy, adult education is not a frill to be cut at the first sign of economic recession. It is an essential part of the national educational system; for democracy itself depends on art educated adult population. It is in this light that a Labour Government should encourage its growth. During the whole period of Conservative administration, the main bodies providing adult education—the local education authorities, the W.E.A. and the Extra-Mural Departments, have been starved of funds and subjected to irritating limitations on their work. Adult education needs for its expansion more organising and tutorial staff. The present ceiling on grants to Extra-Mural Departments and W.E.A. Districts should be raised and a higher proportion of their teaching costs met from Government sources."
I do not know whether this produced the 12 tutors, but there was a remarkable coincidence between the publication of the Report and the minor concessions which the Minister gave to adult education in allowing last year an increase in the number of tutors and in the amount available for paying part-time tutors' fees.
In October came the Robbins Report, with paragraph 518, which made special reference to the contribution which extra-mural departments and the W.E.A. have made to the general education of the community. The Robbins Report said of adult education,
"The demand exists on a large scale."

1801
The Robbins Committee observed the position rather differently from Lord Eccles who, seeing the same evidence, thought that there was not much demand. I prefer Robbins observation, since the Robbins Committee had done its work much more thoroughly than Lord Eccles is apt to do in education. The Robbins Report praised the pioneering of the W.E.A. and the university extra-mural classes in all parts of the world—the rôle of Oxford in the West Indies and West Africa, the rôle of Durham in Sierra Leone and the rôle of London in several overseas territories. There was clear evidence that the work of the voluntary bodies was a great success and that developing countries modelled their style of adult education on it. The old Commonwealth countries have done this from the beginning.
How have the Government been supporting adult education? The Robbins Report has been accepted by the Government except, obviously, for this particular, and I should like a clear assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that in the future the Government intend to accept paragraph 158. The National Institute of Adult Education produced a report on staffing and accommodation, and the Minister sent circulars to local authorities commending cooperation in this field in respect of accommodation, but I must point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that there were two years of work in the National Institute's report and that all the Minister did was to spend two hours drawing up a circular and passing the buck back to the L.E.A's.
I want to ask plainly, do the Government accept paragraph 518 of the Robbins Report? This standstill has aroused a big volume of protest. Many of my hon. Friends and a number of hon. Members opposite support me in the spirit of this Adjournment and some wish to speak today. All my colleagues in the northern group are in favour of removing the standstill, and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock), Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) and Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), have
1802
asked me to mention that they support the lines on which I am speaking.
There is a very simple answer which the Parliamentary Secretary can give today. He can reply in one sentence by apologising for the typing error in which a "1" was left out of his reply, so that the increase of grant for 1964–65 instead of 0 per cent. should be 10 per cent. This will satisfy me very well, and I will give him his typing error. But perhaps he wishes to elaborate on that.
He could, however, if he wants to, be a little more elaborate, and say that he accepts paragraph 518 of the Robbins Report, page 33 of the Taylor Report, and paragraph 74 of his Ministry's publication Further Education issued in 1947.
I will conclude with that. His Ministry's own Report in 1947, when adult education was booming, says this:
"If a great extension of technical education is essential to the well-being of our economic life, so equally is a wide development of general adult education necessary if we are—as individuals or as a nation—to deal competently and democratically with the complex political questions of our time, or to develop those interests and activities which go to the making of a full and satisfying life."
The Joint Under-Secretary has a very easy task before him today and he can satisfy us very easily indeed.
4.16 p.m.
Mr. Charles Curran: I suppose we can regard it as non-controversial that we are all in favour of the promotion of adult education. The question is whether the State ought or ought not to play a larger part in it than it is playing now. I speak as a member of the W.E.A., somebody who has supported it with money and with services for a good many years. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will resist, and resist vigorously, the suggestion that the only way to promote adult education in this country is by providing more and more money from the public purse. I do not believe it. It is high time that the W.E.A. recognised that this is not 1903, that Albert Mansbridge has been dead for a long lime, and that the England in which the W.E.A. was created is not there any longer.
I dare say it was true 60 years ago that, if adult education was to survive, it had to be promoted by the State and had to be supported more and more by

1803
State funds. This is not so in the England of the 1960s. I can see no reason why adult education should not flourish on the voluntary contributions of those who want it and who benefit from it. So far from seeking to extend the amount of State support to it, I want to encourage voluntary support. I think that those who benefit from it—a great many people do benefit from it—might reasonably be asked to pay for it, and to pay much more than they do.
It seems to me idle to suppose in the England of the 1960s that the beneficiaries of adult education are so poor, so wretched, so helpless, that they cannot do anything for themselves and that money must be provided for them from the public purse. I believe that, so far from extending public grants to the W.E.A., we should on the contrary stimulate the beneficiaries of the work of the Association to pay for it, and to pay more for it. I think—I am again speaking as a member of the Association—that it is very undesirable and unsatisfactory that this body, which has done such valuable work, should still be imprisoned in the past. It is high time that the Association abandoned its soup kitchen position, the position of supposing that the beneficiaries of its work are all too poor to help themselves, and recognised the fact that in this increasingly affluent England of today the beneficiaries of adult education might reasonably be expected to pay at least as much for it as they pay for booze and Bingo.
4.19 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I do not want to take more than a moment or two, because this is really a back bench occasion. However, I do not want the debate to pass without it being made perfectly clear that we on this side of the House, at any rate, believe that adult education is part of a civilised life, that it is just as entitled to support from public funds as are, for example, art galleries, and public libraries which we have been discussing in Committee. We should be very happy indeed if the Government would pay attention to the very strong feeling that there is about the standstill of expansion in this field. We feel this is regrettable.
1804
I want to make just one specific point. The reason given publicly for this action by the Government is that they are assisting the residential colleges. This assistance, however, welcome though it is, is to be spread over three years, not beginning until 1965–66. It amounts to 50 percent only of the capital grant of about £400,000 in total expenditure and, therefore, to about £200,000 altogether, spread over three years. These establishments have not received a penny from public funds hitherto on capital account. We shall still have to collect a very large amount ourselves and we do not recognise this as any excuse for not helping the responsible bodies, as they are called, in adult education.
4.21 p.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) is entitled and correct to start with the premise that social conditions are different today from 1902. The hon. Member is, however, wrong to suggest that the W.E.A. people in early years were moved out of poverty and wretchedness in the sense in which he expressed himself. In my view, the changed social conditions of today, of automation and the like, need a development of adult education equally as much as people did 50 or 60 years ago. State and voluntary activity must be as much a partnership today as it was in the past.
I do not seek to detain the House long, because I shall be interested to hear what the Government's representative says. I have had strong representations in Yorkshire from constituents, trade unions and the W.E.A., the northern district in particular. Even as things are, plans in North Yorkshire for 28 classes in the current year had to be halved, the duration of another 19 classes has had to be cut by half, 300 students have been turned away and nearly 300 students have had shortened classes. We are grateful for the extra £200 that was given, but this was on top of a cut in the original estimated expenditure.
The point which I rose to make is that in North Yorkshire it was aimed to have a tutor in industrial relations on Humberside. This is the sort of work which goes hand-in-hand with the work

1805
which has been done under the Industrial Training Act, but that is narrowly vocational. The work that is done with the trade unions on the liberal arts side is equally important. Through W.E.T.U.C., the W.E.A. can do a good deal. I felt it necessary to bring these facts to the notice of the Under-Secretary of State.
4.23 p.m.
The Joint Under Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I am left with a very few moments in which to reply to the debate, but I appreciate that there are a number of hon. Members who take a keen interest in adult education. The last occasion, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) reminded the House, on which I replied to him on an adult education subject was in July last year, when the hon. Member raised the question of capital grants to the long-term residential colleges.
As the hon. Member and the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) have acknowledged, those grants have now been sanctioned to the long-term residential adult colleges. The four colleges which have firm plans for expansion should start their building work during the period 1965 to 1968. The hon. Member may fairly point out that the expenditure to which the Education Department is thereby committed, a sum in all of £200,000, does not fall upon this year's Vote. I point to the incident, however, as a refutation of the suggestion made by the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend has no sympathy with adult education.
The first thing that I wish to make clear is that there is no question of a reduction in grant to university extramural departments or to the Workers' Educational Association or any of the responsible bodies for the current year. It is not even the case, as the hon. Member suggested and as has been suggested in the document which was sent by the Universities Council for Adult Education and the W.E.A. to a number of hon. Members, that there will be a standstill on Ministry grants to responsible bodies this year.
That is not the case. Total grants to the responsible bodies, residential colleges and national associations in the
1806
financial year, 1963–64 amounted to £879,090; for. 1964–65 the total will be £934,250. Total grants have, therefore, risen by about £55,000. Looking only at the figures for the universities and responsible bodies, we find that whereas the amount was £791,060 for 1963–64, the estimate for the coming year is £839,000. Moreover, that figure does not include a further sum of certainly over £70,000 which will be required to meet the recent university salary award, and which will need a supplementary Vote.
The House must, therefore, accept that there is here no question of a standstill in grants—still less of a reduction in them. What has happened is that we have had to say to the voluntary bodies that we cannot, for this year, finance any expansion of activity; and that the increased sums made available are broadly necessary in order to finance activities on the same scale as the year before. When the hon. Gentleman said that the House would be satisfied if I could suggest that there would be a 10 percent. increase in grant for the coming year he was giving me too easy a let-out, because there is, as I say, a recognisable increase. What has caused disappointment is that we have been unable this year to finance any further expansion in activity.
In answer to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Education said that he did not feel justified in proposing further expansion in 1964–65 over and above chat sanctioned in 1963–64 in view of the Government's heavy and increasing commitments on other forms of education. That we were able to finance some improvement in staffing in the previous year was acknowledged by hon. Members. Additional funds were provided last year to allow 15 new tutor appointments and give higher fees to part-timers.
I appreciate that the responsible bodies are disappointed that we cannot take this a stage further in the current year, but I suggest that it could not be accepted by any Government that an expanded grant in one year involved some sort of commitment to a further expansion in grant in the succeeding year. It is said that small sums are involved. Compared with a total educa-

1807
tional expenditure now running at over £1,300 million, that is true. Nevertheless, the total grant to adult education may well amount this year, as I have indicated, to over £1 million, and looking back over the years it is clear that there has been an appreciable increase in the grant made available to the responsible bodies and to the national associations.
The total of grants to adult education through the Ministry of Education was about £390,000 in 1954–55—that is 10 years ago—and the fact that there has been this increase in expenditure despite all the other pressures on the Ministry of Education does not tally with the somewhat ungenerous statements made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland about my noble Friend Lord Eccles.
With those increased sums the responsible bodies have succeeded in appreciably increasing their scale of activity. Whereas, in 1954–55, there were 7,448 classes in 1962–63 the figure was 9,056. That was a drop over the year before, resulting purely, as I understand, from an exceptionally bad winter. Again, the numbers of full-time tutors have increased over that period.
There were a number of other figures that I had wished to give to the House, but, as my time is almost up, I would simply say this. I do not believe that the improvement that we see taking place in general education will lead to any elimination of the need for adult education. I take the point made by my
1808
hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), and it is a valid point. There is little doubt that over the years people will be in a position to pay more for the adult education that they want, but, equally, I think that it will be accepted in all parts of the House that one result of a better formal education will be an increasing demand for adult education if only because one of the purposes of any educational system, I take it, is to produce people with a desire to educate themselves. Some of those people will not wish to make demands on any formal system of adult education, but some may.
I would not, therefore, have the House believe that the standstill in activity which my right hon. Friend suggests for this year—the modest increase in grant—heralds some agonising reappraisal by my right hon. Friend of the rôle of the responsible bodies. That is not the case. The fact of the matter is that, however desirable would be an early expansion of some of the activities to which hon. Members have drawn attention, there are at the moment more urgent priorities. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend has had to confine the increase in grants—
The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Five o' clock.