Lords Sitting of 20 December 1955

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

OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY
2.35 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the statement made in this House on the 8th of November with regard to retired pay was apt to be misleading for the following reasons—

(1) The extract quoted referred to the R.A.F. alone, and in 1919 there were no officers of the R.A.F. entitled to pensions except those who had started in the Army or the Navy;

(2) The corresponding clause in the Army Warrant commences "Subject to Articles 2 to 4," and Article 2 provides that the rates of pay or pensions laid down "shall be subject to revision on account of variation in the cost of living…";

(3) No such clause or provision exists in the corresponding Admiralty Order for the Navy:

and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they de not consider that the unilateral cancellation of the clause providing for revision as quoted constitutes a breach of faith.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords. I am afraid that Her Majesty's Government could not accept the suggestion in the noble Lord's Question that the statement referred to was in any way misleading. The new pay and pensions codes introduced in 1919 in all three Services were based on the same principles, and the rather more explicit phraseology of the Royal Air Force Order is, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, a proper interpretation of
334
such phrases as, "to be subject to review," "will be subject after five years to revision" and "revision may take place," which appear in the corresponding Orders of the Royal Navy and the Army. I am afraid that it is also incorrect to state that no such clause exists in the corresponding Order for the Navy. The Admiralty's Order in Council of the 22nd January, 1920, includes a statement that the rates then introduced would be subject to review on or after the 1st July, 1924. As the noble Lord will know, successive Governments have all maintained the view that the provisions in the pension code for all three Services did not constitute an undertaking to the officers concerned, and that the decision to abandon the system of variation with the cost of living was one which the Government of the day were entitled to take.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the undertaking in question was universally accepted in the Services as a promise? Further, is he aware that in the opinion of distinguished Queen's Counsel the action of the Government has amounted to a breach of contract in this matter, and, moreover, that the late Lord Simon, a former Lord Chancellor, was of that opinion?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I can only reply that this appears to be one of those questions where, even in the highest legal circles, there may be differences of view.
LORD FREYBERG: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware of the grave dissatisfaction which exists among Regular Service pensioners of all ranks with this policy? Is he aware, also, that officers feel that they have been deceived by what they regard as a breach of faith on the part of the Government, and that this is having a bad effect on the recruitment of Regular officers for the Services?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, of course, I will report to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said, with all his authority, but I do not think I can add to what has already been said on the subject. I need hardly say that, as the noble Lord knows, we all view this question with the utmost sympathy.

FRENCH EXPORT SUBSIDIES
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if, with regard to O.E.E.C. resolution for the discontinuance by 31st December, 1955, of export subsidies by participating countries, they are able to report notification by France that she is by the year-end to conform to the Agreement.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, by the decision of the Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation to which my noble friend refers, most members undertook to discontinue by the end of this year certain types of artificial aids to export. In the case of France, however, the date for the application of the decision was left to be decided by the Council in the light of a report on the economic circumstances of France. This report was submitted last September and the Organisation is now studying it. Her Majesty's Government will continue to impress upon France the desirability of giving up these artificial aids to exporters.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the reply which the noble Lord has given indicates that most countries have agreed to take action, but he referred specifically to France as acting in a way different from the rest. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord this further question: if, as would appear, there is procrastination on the part of France, can he indicate any evidence of genuine intention on the part of France to conform to what the other nations have agreed should be done? Because the action of France, as our industrial competitor in those industries most affected, is causing the greatest difficulty and inconvenience to our exporters.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I must confess that the action of France has not been everything that could have been wished. The French Government
336
have, however, announced and reported to the Organisation some reductions in the rebate given to exporters of certain turnover taxes. This change is welcome: but it is not clear that the rebates in question were, in fact, covered by the Council decision or contribute to carrying out the obligations which France has been repeatedly asked to undertake.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, seeing that this continuance reacts injuriously on British exports, can the noble Lord not state a time by which the French Government must abide by the Articles under which we are acting?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if I am right in assuming that Her Majesty's Government had some success in persuading Western Germany to give up these practices, what will be the effect on the Continent of Europe if France carries on with her present attitude? May I also ask the noble Lord this question? As our export industries are in such a precarious state at the present time, what will be the Government's reaction, when they find failure staring them in the face, to their laudable but vain efforts to get other nations to give up subsidising exports in direct competition with ours?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I first answer the supplementary question of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank? It is easy to name a date, but it is not so easy to make France adhere to it. All we can do is to continue, as we have in the past, to bring pressure to bear on France to make her see the necessity for honouring her European obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me what would be the effect in West Germany, which has agreed to abandon these practices. The point is a valid one. I think the effect will be an unhappy one. As to his remark about failure, we prefer to think that, if we persevere in our present policy, we shall eventually achieve a greater measure of success. If failure is to occur, we must put of that unhappy day until we have to meet it. In the meantime, we propose to go on with our present policy as best we can.

ELECTRICITY BOARD WINDOW DISPLAY
2.43 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true, as reported in The Times of Wednesday, 14th December, that a window display of a Nativity scene, in the Warrington showrooms of the Electricity Board, depicted the three Wise Men proffering a washing machine, an electric cooker and a refrigerator. with a poster over the scene proclaiming "Wise Men choose gifts that last"; and, if so, whether, to avoid further such disgraceful and blasphemous commercial advertising by a nationally controlled industry in a Christian country, Her Majesty's Government will consider issuing a general direction to the controlling Boards of these industries, laying down guiding principles concerning advertisements for which they are responsible.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power sympathises with the views expressed by the noble Lord about this advertisement, He has been informed by the Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board that they deeply regret the offence which has been given. An error of judgment was clearly made, and the advertisement was withdrawn as soon as a protest was received.
As regards the last part of the noble Lord's Question, Her Majesty's Government consider that the form of advertisement used must be left to the judgment of the Boards concerned, and that it is not a subject to be dealt with by means of a general direction.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the three Sunday Entertainments Act Orders standing in my name on the Order Paper arc all in the usual form and in the usual content. There is no point to which I think I need particularly draw your Lordships' attention. Accordingly, I beg to move the first Order standing in my name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. for extending Section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Chorley, be approved.— (Lord Mancroft.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Rushden, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Terbury, be approved.— (Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAFT LOCAL AUTHORITIES (STOCK) REGULATIONS, 1955
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Motion be agreed to.
Moved, That the Draft Local Authorities (Stock) Regulations, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COASTAL FLOODING (ACREAGE PAYMENTS) SCHEME, 1956
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, this is the fourth scheme to be made under Section 13 of the Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1953. Its object is the same as that of the other schemes—to give financial help for the rehabilitation of land which was damaged by salt water as a result of the East Coast floods in January, 1953. This scheme is identical with the last one, except that the rates of payment set out in the First

339
Schedule are being varied slightly in detail as the land gradually recovers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Coastal Flooding (Acreage Payments) Scheme, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHITE FISH SUBSIDY (UNITED KINGDOM) No. 2 SCHEME, 1955
2.47 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) No. 2 Scheme, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will remember that the White Fish Subsidy Scheme which was approved in July last provided for the continuation of the subsidy until the end of the year with no change in the rates or conditions of payment. The rate of subsidy has therefore been unchanged since the increase given in August, 1954, although the 1954 trading accounts of the owners of near and middle water vessels and the records of proceeds on sales of fish this year have revealed greatly improved earnings. At the same time, costs have undoubtedly been rising, and we have had to consider what the net effect of this race between increasing costs and increasing earnings is on the various sections of the fleet.
For the near and middle water fleet we are fortunate in having trading accounts which give full details of the costs and earnings of every vessel for several years back. In 1954, there was a very noticeable net improvement over 1953, and since the beginning of this year there have been further improvements in earnings which should more than compensate for the increases in cost that have fallen on motor vessels. Steam vessels have shared the improvement in earnings; but they have had extra costs to bear for fuel, and, because they are, for the most part, old and uneconomic vessels, they are not so well placed to withstand increases in cost. We have therefore decided that the flat rate which is paid to all near and middle water vessels should be reduced from 4d. to 2d. a stone
340
on fish landed and sold for human consumption, but that steam vessels should be given substantial increases in the voyage subsidy.
For inshore vessels we have, unfortunately, no such reliable information on the costs and profitability of the fleet. We do know that the inshore fleet's gross earnings were 8 per cent. higher in 1954 than in 1953, and 11 per cent, higher in the first ten months of 1955 than of 1954. As your Lordships will know, we have considered and reconsidered the inshore subsidy, with the result that the Scheme which was laid before your Lordships on December 6, and which would have reduced the inshore subsidy from 10d. to 6d. a stone, was withdrawn a week later and replaced by a new scheme reducing the subsidy to 8d. a stone. I should like to say how grateful I am to those of your Lordships who serve on the Special Orders Committee for agreeing to consider this new Scheme at exceedingly short notice, so that it could come before the House to-day.
The actual total of subsidy payments in any year depends on the landings and price of fish during that year, and we cannot forecast it with any certainty. However, on the basis of the actual fish landings and subsidy payments made during the last twelve months, the net effect of all the changes we propose will be to increase the total subsidy by about £150,000. The increase all goes to the steam vessels, which will be some £325,000 better off as far as subsidy goes, while the motor vessels of the inshore, near and middle water fleets will receive £175,000 less subsidy.
This is the first time that the subsidy paid to any section of the fleet has been reduced, and we cannot expect it to be entirely welcomed by the industry. I would remind your Lordships that our present authority to pay any subsidy expires, under the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, on March 31, 1958; that the subsidy is now running at a high rate; and that its intention has never been more than to limit the losses incurred by the fleet until the new boats built under the Grants Scheme and the international measures to improve fish stocks have, between them, put the industry on a reasonably economic basis.
There are three small changes in the subsidy rates about which I should say a word. Until now seining vessels under

341
70 feet in length have all been treated, for subsidy purposes, as inshore vessels. The new Scheme applies near water subsidy rates to those seining vessels which are at sea for more than a week at a time, partly because it is more logical to give them the same treatment as the bigger trawlers which fish the same grounds, and partly because we think the combination of voyage subsidy and flat rate which they will now receive is more suited to their needs than a purely flat rate such as the inshore subsidy.
The second change is an increase in the rates of over-70 feet vessels fishing the Shetland grounds. These are a long way from most ports, and we feel that they should be subsidised on the more generous basis which has hitherto applied only to Faroese waters. The third change is an extension of the Faroe rates to another class of vessel, this time to those which engage in three-snip pair fishing. This is a new method of fishing to British vessels, but one which is practised by Spanish ships, apparently with much success; and we hope that the new rates will encourage British owners to experiment with this new method of fishing.
I should like to make it clear that the changes which we are now proposing do not represent any change either in our policy towards tie industry or in our attitude to the principles of the Act of 1953. We are satisfied, on the best evidence we can obtain, that these changes are reasonable and fair and in accordance with the spirit of the Act. We have every intention of continuing our efforts to help the fishermen of this country in their progress towards greater prosperity and efficiency. I beg to move.
Moved, That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) No. 2 Scheme, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. —(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
2.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl opposite will be surprised to know that I and noble Lords on this side of the House will have something to say, quite briefly, on this slippery subject of white fish. Everyone agrees—this is common ground —that the subsidy for white fish should be renewed, as the Government propose, for a further period of time; but the first thing about which we complain is the
342
manner in which the Government have arrived at the amount of the subsidy which they propose in this Scheme for the approval of your Lordships. This also involves, of course, the amount of the reduction of the existing subsidy which runs until the end of the year. Here are the facts—they are absolutely beyond dispute. About three weeks ago the Government introduced a new Scheme, reducing the amount of the existing subsidy, and submitted that Scheme to Parliament. The reception of this Scheme in another place was apparently adverse, and the original Scheme was withdrawn. The present scheme, the No. 2 Scheme as it is called in the Order, was introduced in its place. The present Scheme is not merely a minor alteration or modification of the original Scheme; it is something radically different. It does not just slightly reduce the original cut; it halves the amount of the cut in the subsidy for landed fish, the amount being now not 4d., as in the original Scheme, but 2d. a stone. There is a proportional reduction by one-half.
Those are the facts. They are admitted and agreed, and it is difficult to know what has caused the Minister to propose, first of all, a big cut in the subsidy and, just a. few weeks later, a halving of the original cut. We are all entitled to our own views about the causes of these phenomena but I should like to submit mine for your Lordships' consideration. It looks to me as if the Minister's better judgment about the original Scheme had been overruled by the Treasury and that after this Scheme had been submitted to Parliament he was then able to go back to the Treasury and say that public opinion would not accept such a big cut in the white fish subsidy. I know the present policy, the "waiting" policy, of the Budget and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we know that it is not acceptable, in many cases, to the spending Departments in what they would like to do. So I do not think my surmise is too unreasonable.
If this is what happened, it is surely an example of how the amount of the taxpayers' money spent on a subsidy should not be decided. After all, the only relevant evidence for fixing the subsidy—we all agree about the policy; the Government have said that they are continuing the policy of subsidy for this industry, and it is only a question of

343
method—is the financial condition of the industry. Other factors are completely irrelevant. Complaints in the House, the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for economy and so on, are irrelevant to the policy which the Government have laid down to enable fishermen to earn a reasonable livelihood from the business of the fishing industry. Whether or not they are earning a reasonable livelihood is a matter to be decided after consideration of the financial facts of the industry. I cannot imagine that these financial facts have changed in the last few weeks. The Government cannot have it both ways: one or the other of these schemes has been a grievous error of judgment.
As to the merits of the present Scheme, I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is certainly an improvement on the last one, because it offers more help to the fishing industry, and, above all, to the marginal element in the fishing industry. There is at the present time, as most of your Lordships will have observed, an important, and indeed alarming, division of opinion about the effect of this Scheme on the inshore fishing industry. This is the only section of the industry about which I wish, briefly, to speak. The value of the Scheme as a whole will fall down if any part of it goes seriously wrong. This is the division of opinion. The Minister, the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and members of Her Majesty's Government believe that the reduction in the subsidy as proposed in the Scheme can be absorbed by the profit margin of the fishermen, but the fishermen's organisations and representatives of fishing constituencies in another place take the opposite view. They think that it will be impossible for many of the men to earn a reasonable livelihood if a reduction of this magnitude is made.
Looking through the Report of the discussion in another place yesterday, I noticed that although there were twelve speakers of all Parties, other than the two Ministers, there was only one who supported the Scheme. The opponents included the two Conservative representatives for Banff and Aberdeenshire East, who represent the largest section of the inshore fishing industry. So that this is not a matter of Party opinion at all. The representatives of all sections of political opinion expressed their views when this was discussed in another place
344
and, as I have said, only one speaker supported the Scheme. I do not think it possible for me to express any opinion on the merits of the Scheme. Here is a clear division of view by authoritative persons, and I am a mere layman—an outsider. Of course, the future will show who is right. If any of these unfortunate men find that they cannot earn a livelihood from fishing and drift off to other occupations, that will show that the critics are right. If they do not do that, it will show that the Government are right.
However, I should like to make one comment. I think that this Scheme, and indeed any Scheme based on the data used by the Government, is vitiated because the Government have not taken into account all the relevant data. It seemed to me that this was admitted by the Minister in his case for the Scheme in another place. If your Lordships will permit me —I think it is permitted to read a statement by a Minister—I should like to quote his words. [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 547 (No. 78), col. 1677]:
"In the case of the near and middle water vessels, as I have said, we get accounts of the results of each vessel each year, and that gives us full information. But with the inshore fisheries"—
it is the inshore fisheries about which I am talking now—
"we are not so fortunately placed. We know the gross earnings fairly accurately. but we receive no comprehensive figures of the expenses from the industry and we have to make the best estimate we can on average experiences."
That statement amounts to this: that although the Minister knows what the earnings of the inshore fisheries are—that is easy enough, because he knows what prices they get for their fish—he does not know with any degree of certainty what their costs are. After all, a reasonable figure for the subsidy must depend upon the relationship between the fisherman's costs, which are certainly rising—labour costs, the cost of repairs to boats and so on and so forth—and his earnings.
What I should have liked to see is a continuation of the subsidy at the existing level, until an inquiry had been made to ascertain the costs of the inshore fisherman, and the production of a new Scheme based on the relationship between his costs and his earnings. I regard it as most unfortunate that this Scheme has not been based on this essential evidence.

345
It was said, I think, by one Minister yesterday that an inquiry is intended before a new Scheme is drawn up, and I am glad to hear that. I should like the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, in the first place, to say whether, when that inquiry is completed and before the new Scheme is submitted to your Lordships, a statement will be made about the whole financial position of the inshore fishing industry. In the second place (although this may not be possible simultaneously), I think that all Ministers ought to consider at the present time making a statement about their policy in relation to the white fish industry.
As the noble Earl pointed out, the effect of the 1953 Act expires in 1958, and what I think Parliament would wish to know is whether the Government consider that the industry can be pat on an economic footing by that date, or whether this payment of quite big subsidies will have to continue until the industry is modernised and re-equipped. I think that your Lordships, and Parliament generally, would welcome a statement of policy of that kind before measures based on policy are submitted for their consideration. As I have said, we disapprove of the present Scheme because, in our view, it is founded on inadequate data, and although it would be quite inappropriate for us to divide the House as was done in another place, we wish to place our views on record and to express the hope that the defects, which we believe are substantial, will be remedied before another Scheme is submitted.
3.5 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should just like to acid this to what my noble friend has said. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. First a cut in the subsidy is proposed; then there is a little agitation in another place, and the cut in the subsidy is halved. Now, I gather, we are told that there are really no data at all upon which to ascertain what the subsidy should be. I am most surprised if that is so. I remember perfectly well that when I was Lord Chancellor the solicitors agitated for a rise in their general level of costs. I remember that the Treasury gave me a table—not, of course, revealing the earnings of any particular solicitor, but giving me the average earnings of solicitors as a whole,
346
showing how they had gone up year by year. The same information in regard to trawler owners must be available to the Treasury, because trawler owners have to pay income tax. Surely, before they considered what should be done about this subsidy the Government had the figures; and if they had the figures, surely they ought to have announced their decision and stuck to it, instead of going "on the run" just because a political agitation was started. I think the whole thing is most unsatisfactory, and I am grateful to my noble friend who has just spoken and who has exposed the situation.
3.7 p.m.
LORD WISE: my Lords, may I add another word from this side of the House about this particular matter, which is very much in the forefront of the news in Norfolk and Suffolk. There we have large fishing areas, and in the last few days I have, been surprised at the number of meetings which have been held and at the reports circulated in the papers about the disapproval of the fishermen at the action of the Government. I notice that in another place the Minister said that unless the Scheme was passed at once, there would be no subsidy after December 31. It is obvious, therefore, that vie cannot divide or throw out the Scheme. However, I wish the Government to take notice of the fact that in Norfolk and Suffolk, and I expect elsewhere, the debate in the other place yesterday has caused a good deal of anxiety concerning the future of the fishing industry.
The Minister said either yesterday or a few days ago, that in bringing in another Scheme full merit would be given to the figures which could be produced in the meantime of earnings and otherwise. I have before me a note of the Lowestoft figures for the past eleven months, which show a decrease not only in landings, to the extent of 36,000 cwt. of fish, but also in earnings from the boats of £38,000. So far as one can see from these figures, the earnings and landings have been decreasing month by month. I do not know what will happen in the future. Apparently the fishermen there are particularly perturbed about it. I want to endorse what was said by a previous speaker. Instead of bringing forward a "half-baked" Scheme of this sort, to last for about six months, I think it

347
would have been better for the Government to have considered the renewal of the existing Scheme until a new Scheme could be produced. I therefore hope that the Government will see to it that the fishing industry in this country does not go backwards.
3.10 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to make it perfectly clear that the significant difference between the revised Scheme and the original Scheme is the alteration of 2d. per stone in the rate of subsidy for inshore vessels. In my earlier remarks I tried to explain that our information on the costs of these vessels is, frankly, nothing like so reliable as it is in the case of the near and middle water fleet. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, feels that we should have got hold of fuller figures; but one of the troubles is that, unlike solicitors, inshore fishermen have other means of supplementing their earnings, through the holiday trade and the shellfish business, which is entirely outside this Scheme but is very remunerative to them; also a great many of them —the small men—keep no accounts at all. As a result, we are naturally disposed to give fishermen the benefit of any doubt there may be about the cost of inshore fishing.
After we had laid the first Scheme, various sections of the inshore fishing industry called attention to the effect of the cuts we were proposing and the results at various ports and on particular types of vessel. It was this information, which came in between the laying of the two Schemes and which was supplementary to that we had before, which led us to believe that we should be justified in not reducing the rate of subsidy by as much as we had originally intended. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about the forthcoming inquiry. It is a departmental inquiry and I shall be happy to give any information upon it when the Scheme is laid next July, a Scheme which I hope will be to your Lordships' satisfaction.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FINANCE BILL
3.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, on November 1 last we had a fairly full discussion on the economic position in this country, and at that time we examined the events which led up to the Autumn Budget and the proposals which Her Majesty's Government put forward at that time. We also examined in some detail those proposals which now form the contents of the Finance Bill which we have before us. The Bill has come to us with no radical alteration to its main structure. I am given to understand that there is no strong desire in your Lordships' House that I should recapitulate either the history or the arguments which led up to this Autumn Budget. If that is correct, while I shall, of course, be delighted to answer any of your Lordships' questions, if I can do so, it might be of interest to the House if I stated shortly and factually the present economic position in the light of the latest facts which we have available.
It is not to be expected that within two months of the supplementary Budget any definite results should be available. I am quite sure that mastering the inflationary pressure will take a considerable time and demand continuing determination, but it is satisfactory to note that our losses in gold and dollars in October and November were much less than they had been over the previous three months; moreover sterling has shown a steady increase in strength since the Budget was introduced, and has now been over parity for a month. Further, there has been a rise in transferable sterling rate. We have not yet seen in our overseas trade figures the improvement that we want in the gap between imports and exports, though it is satisfactory to note that exports, particularly to the dollar areas, have been improving slightly.
Turning to the internal economy, I think it is fair to say that most of the information here, which has come to hand in the last six weeks, relates to the period before the Budget was introduced; but all this evidence only goes to confirm that the economy is overloaded and that demands upon it must be cut down. The

349
shortage of labour persists. Unemployment in October and November was the lowest for those months since the end of the war, and was far exceeded by the number of unfilled vacancies. Retail trade is booming and it is clear that there is a very large volume of investment plans still to be carried out. If I might give an example, I would point out that the number of industrial buildings started in the first six months of this year was 40 per cent. higher than in the last half of the previous year, while in the machine tool industry, orders, at any rate until quite recently, have been lengthening. It is clear that it is essentially demand which has overloaded the economy, which has been driving up wages and prices and which is distracting attention from the export market.
In these circumstances measures of restraint are undoubtedly necessary and, besides the fiscal measures which are already in this Bill, great importance must continue to be attached to maintaining the pressure of credit restriction through the bank s. The reduction in bank lending so far achieved is all to the good, but it is clear from the economic situation that this must be maintained and carried furthet. There is one way in which we can all contribute, and that is by higher savings; and it is to be hoped that full use will be made of the improved facilities which were announced nearly two months ago.
We are not alone in facing these problems. If we look abroad we find that other industrial countries are experiencing in some cases a very rapid expansion, and have had varying degrees of excessive demand to counter. Measures similar to those we have taken in this tour try have been imposed in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and credit restrictions of one kind or another have also been imposed in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, South Africa and the United States of America. This fact in no way eases our obligation to face squarely the problem of inflation as it exists in this country to-day—inflation which might undermine the structure of the social services which we have built up so laboriously and might undermine the standard of living in this country, which is among the highest in the world. I am quite sure that we cannot meet this threat unless we are prepared to make some sacrifice in doing so, and that if
350
the Government were not prepared to ask the people to make sacrifices, then inevitably inflation would continue. This Bill seeks to spread the burden fairly broadly across the whole community. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.18 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just addressed us is quite right in saying that, in the main, we covered the ground on this Second Reading of the Finance Bill in the debate on the economic situation which we had six or seven weeks ago; but he is wrong in thinking that the facts which he has been kind enough to give us to-day will impress us very much—certainly not those of us on this side of the House—or alter our view regarding the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which we then knew in the budgetary form as they were conceived in the Chancellor's brain, and as we now have them, clothed with flesh and blood, in the Finance Bill. With regard to some of the facts of which the noble Earl was speaking to-day, I will make only one comment. He explained that one of the troubles was the excess of demand over supply. On that, I would only remind Members of your Lordships' House of the fact that every day, and nearly every hour of the day, the Government's set-up, I.T.A., is displaying seductive pictures of various articles and stimulating in that way the very demand which the noble Earl has been deploring.
The growth of this infant of finance from the Budget stage to the present stage has not been a very happy one. I am sure that the noble Earl himself does not expect that we, on these Benches, shall have changed our views, or that we love the poor little infant any more than we did in those days. And not only that—unless I am mistaken, there are quite a large number of people not of our Party but of the Party of the noble Lords opposite who have not a much higher opinion of this Bill than we have ourselves. In spite of that, I have no intention of repeating the case against the objects of these financial proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which we put clearly before your Lordships' House in that debate in November, and, so far as I ant concerned, I shall not oppose the

351
intention of the Government to carry the Bill through all its stages on this occasion—if that is their intention. All I will say is: let the unloved thing go forward to its own predestined end.
3.23 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I have no doubt that your Lordships have all read the Finance Bill which we are now discussing. Having read it, I feel sure that noble Lords all understand it. This reminds me of a certain episode which occurred in your Lordships' House some years ago. We were in Committee on a certain Bill (I think the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will remember the occasion) and a point was reached where we were asked to agree that a certain clause should stand part of the Bill. My recollection is that the noble and learned Earl rose in his place and said: "Before we do that ought we not to understand what this clause is about. I do not know whether any noble Lord does." And it appeared that no one did. I think it is important, when these very complicated questions of finance come before us, that we should have, in the simplest possible language, an explanation, of what they all mean. I am not a highly educated man, but even if I had taken a "Double First" in mathematics, the same would apply. I really cannot see how you or I or any ordinary individual can be expected to understand this Bill. There are some clauses which have almost pages of explanation, all very complicated, going back to Finance Bills of the 'forties and then on to some of those of the 'fifties and so on.
I feel that if we are to get the whole nation to do as my noble friend has suggested—which is everything that we want —it would be well to give them something in the shape of a Bill like this written in language they could read and understand. That would be an enormous incentive to people to say: "Now look here, I must do something about this." But it is quite impossible for them to make head or tail of this document. I know that drafting can be a matter of great difficulty. When one writes an article or prepares a speech, or even in merely making notes, one often says to oneself, "Now does that really say what I mean? I hope it does." We frequently find great difficulty in deciding how we
352
should put what we have to say into words.
I should like to give your Lordships an instance relating to the operation of purchase tax. A small industry was doing about 70 per cent. Export, and there was no purchase tax at all on the products. The 30 per cent. of the products sold in the home market were not subject to purchase tax. This particular concern, owing to the big export business they were doing, were in process of building a new factory. Along comes this new purchase tax, which meant a 30 per cent. tax on the products of the industry. That immediately stopped the building of the new factory, which was by then half built, and also greatly increased the prices of the industry's export goods—at a time when they were hoping to compete advantageously in the markets of the world.
Various discussions have taken place lately on the question of not having purchase tax at all. I understand that there are quite a number of countries which do not have purchase tax; they have what they call a "sales tax." This is perfectly simple in operation, as there is a uniform tax on every product that is produced throughout the whole country. What have we here? We have a 10 per cent., 20 per cent., 30 per cent., or even as much as 90 per cent., tax on some of the goods produced in this country, which involves extraordinarily difficult and complicated calculations for all those engaged in business throughout the country. I hope that a sales tax, which I understand is operating quite satisfactorily in other countries, and which is much less complicated than purchase tax, will have the consideration of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This "squeeze" is all very well, but I feel that if it were applied a little to the Government's own business, things might be better than they are at the present time. It seems to me that we are living in days of exhortations and directions to private undertakings, and that if only we could get at the Government's own business, and particularly the nationalised industries, it would be setting a tremendous example to the rest of the country. I am strongly of the opinion that the Government are right to impose these rather awkward and hampering restrictions on the local authorities, and I hope that the local authorities will—indeed I

353
feel sure they will—conform to these necessary restrictions.
One other thought comes to my mind; it relates to the controversial question of pots and pans. I do not know whether we export a great many pots and pans (I admit that I am very ignorant about this), hut, if we do not, what is the object of putting this purchase tax on these necessities of the people of the country? I agree that if it helped exports it might be a wise thing to do, but I cannot for the life of me see why it should. Of course, we in this House cannot do anything about the Finance Bill except say a word or two that comes into our heads, to try to see that something satisfactory will be carried out which will help the country in the present serious situation, I was immensely interested in what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said. It was most instructive and informative. I hope that what he said will prove to be right and that the policy he explained will gradually extricate us from the difficult situation in which we find ourselves.
3.31 p.m.
LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I should like to extend my tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for the happy and effective way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He chose a method which was effective and which occupied the least part of the time of the House. As he rightly said, in the debate in November the whole broad system of the country's fiscal policy was reviewed, and it would be inopportune to repeat any of that now; and the noble Earl confined himself to domestic issues. I think it would be right if noble Lords were to take this occasion to express their opinions on outstanding matters, and it would be a happy thing if noble Lords who are eminent industrialists were to address your Lordships briefly with reference to some of the important points raised in the autumn Budget.
I seek your Lordships' indulgence to draw attention to ore point—namely, the obsolescence of productive equipment. True, this was dealt with by the Royal Commission on Taxation which reported during the summer, but no recommendations were made and industrialists were left in perplexity as to what should be done. The purpose of my intervention is to draw attention to the point that taxation takes a large part of a company's
354
earnings, while plant of all kinds—in regard to ships there is the same problem —is progressively running down and requires progressive replacement, while costs are rising steeply. Costs include obsolescence allowances on heavily written down plant, and by exporting at selling prices based on these costs it means that in many industries we are really exporting our accumulated fat. We are giving our overseas customers the advantages of these low prices and in many cases that does not permit profits to be made sufficient to build up reserves and to finance replacement. I think it is right that reference should be made to this important domestic arrangement, which affects our exports, when an opportunity like this presents itself.
I would make one other point before I sit down. My noble friend Lord Teviot ventured into an analysis of purchase tax. I think every Member of your Lordships' House could point to anomalies in the effects of a wide range of purchase taxes, and the list would be long enough to extend this Sitting late into the evening. I would make this comment: it would seem that purchase tax on apparel is inopportune, and that it is still mote unreasonable to discriminate between vegetable arid animal fibres.
3.36 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was kind enough to say that he would give us any help he could in reply to any questions we might raise.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I said that I would try to answer any questions.
LORD WISE: I have a homely little matter I should like the noble Earl to deal with, and would call his attention to Clause 10 (4). I have been trying to understand what is exempt and what is included in that subsection. It is not clear from the wording of the subsection to what section in the previous Act it refers. Clause 1 (2) refers to the Finance Act, 1948, and in my innocence I looked up the Finance Act, 1948, to try to match this Clause 10 (4) with the items referred to in paragraphs (g), (h), (i) and (j). I could not find any subsection in the Finance Act, 1948, which refers to paragraphs (i) and (j). Are the items in the list of exceptions at the bottom of page 11 exempt from tax or subject to tax? Are

355
they exceptions from some previous exceptions or are they exempt from tax? If the noble Earl could answer that question off-hand I should be glad; but if it is impossible to do so at the moment, I would be satisfied with an answer in the future.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is asking a lot to expect a Minister to interpret a Finance Bill off-hand on Second Reading. Subsection (4) refers to gas heaters and electric heaters, and they are exempt.
LORD WISE: I am concerned about electric blankets.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It really is not fair to ask anyone to interpret a Finance Bill on a Second Reading debate over the Box, without warning. However, I am anxious to help the noble Lord, and I will try to do so. What is it that he wants to know about—sheets and blankets?
LORD WISE: No: electric blankets, washing machines, and things of that sort.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: They are "designed for heating water by electricity or gas." Electrical or gas heaters are exempt. I think I have said that already.
LORD MATHERS: The noble Earl would have a poor heating blanket if there was water in it. The electric blanket is quite dry.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think there is any confusion between hot water systems and electric blankets of which I know. But perhaps it was not in the mind of the noble Lord. I think I said that I am certain that blankets are exempt, but I want to be sure about electric blankets.
LORD WISE: I am sorry to confuse the noble Earl, but this particular subsection confused me in its wording. If he looks at the subsection carefully I think he will agree that it is rather awkwardly worded and uncertain in its meaning if one has not got the proper reference.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can confirm that electric blankets are subject to 30 per cent. tax. I have a note of most of the articles which are exempt from tax, if the noble Lord wants to know them. There are such articles as sheets
356
and blankets, young children's clothes, nursery furniture, brushes and brooms, shopping baskets, household cleaning materials and gas and electric cookers. I agree with the noble Lord that the interpretation of a Finance Bill is difficult. However, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that it is not practical to write the Finance Bill in basic English. I think that is asking too much of any lawyer. What I might say in extenuation of Clause 4 is that it has been written essentially with the object of allowing all genuine and proper business to continue without being interrupted. It has been written with the object of permitting what I might call normal transactions to continue while excluding the transactions described in this clause. But I must confess that the drafting has got somewhat complicated on this particular clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, referred to depreciation, and I agree with him that it is an important subject. However, I do not consider it is as important at the present time as it is at other times, because I do not think shortage of finance is restricting the development of industry so much as the shortage of labour and materials. In fact, it is reasonably clear that investment is going ahead at a fairly rapid rate—and, in any case, we have not touched the investment allowance. I would remind the noble Lord that the Royal Commission, after careful consideration, came to the conclusion that there was no case for basing depreciation on replacement costs, subject to the economy continuing to be relatively stable.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked about something that I think I dealt with before, and I hesitate to recapitulate—namely, the reason for putting a tax on what are called "pots and pans." I would only say this to the noble Lord. In some cases the purchase tax will definitely discourage the purchase of these articles. Where it does not discourage, it will mean that there are less funds available for other purchases. Therefore, one way or the other it will inevitably reduce demand, to some extent. But what I think is perhaps more important is that the rise in prices will check demand and will, therefore, tend to reduce subsequent pressure on prices. It is just when there is a high level of gross trading profits and profits are easy to make that you get

357
exactly that situation of a wage-price spiral, which is what we are essentially trying to prevent. If it is a little more difficult to make profits, and if the corn-petition on the home market is keener, the wage-price spiral will be that much reduced. That is one of the most important factors to be remembered at this particular time.
The noble Lord suggested, I thought rather rashly, that a considerable capital cut should be put on the nationalised industries. With respect, I think that is rather a dangerous proposition. Does the noble Lord really suggest that we can risk a reduction in coal, or in transport services or in electric power? With respect, I think it would be difficult for a Government to fact that sort of prospect in the future. We have said that the capital expenditure of nationalised industries will be streamlined, but I feel it would be going too far—in fact, it would be highly dangerous—to visualise any material reduction in the expenditure. So far as sales tax is concerned, it is true that it is in use abroad in a number of places; but I can assure the noble Lord that we have no sales tax in our pocket and none in preparation. There are several disadvantages to it, and we certainly do not wish to go ahead with a sales tax. And I wonder whether the noble Lord has considered the administrative problem which is involved in collecting a tax of this kind from ten or twenty times as many retail shopkeepers, instead of collecting it at the wholesale stage. As an administrative problem it has many disadvantages.
LORD REA: My Lords, I thought the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was only answering the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and was not winding up the debate. I should like to enter a protest against the suggestion that there should be any sales tax, which some of us think would be unfair and impossible to operate.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord on this occasion. I think I have answered most of the points, except that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I can assure the not le Lord that the facts I gave him were not intended to impress him. They were, as I said, factual, and frankly, I do not think I made them appear particularly rosy. There is only one thing I should, like to say to the noble Lord, and it is this. While a great
358
many items in this Budget have been severely criticised, it is surprising how few people have really examined the fundamental problem. I concede to the noble Lord that he did so when he opened the debate on November 1; but I cannot say that he provided much of a solution to it, or that he faced boldly up to the unpopular measures which he knows will always be necessary if a solution of this problem is to be found. I cannot help feeling that it is just this element of unpopularity which had made people unwilling to face the implication, or to put forward schemes which would be extensive enough to have the necessary result or effect. The noble Lord called this "an unloved infant." But nobody is going to put forward an effective answer to inflation without these unpopular measures. That is precisely the reason why in a democracy inflation is so insidious.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: What I asked was whether this was an effective answer. That is where we differ.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I know the noble Lord differs from us, But what I say is that in the past nobody has put forward any scheme which goes as far as the present one in its extent and its effect. There bas been plenty of criticism of this little ht and that little bit of the scheme, but nobody has been bold enough to put forward an alternative which would bring a solution. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, got up and boldly said: "What about a tax on tobacco?" But he then added: "I do not suggest that myself." That has been the attitude always in regard to this Bill: people do not like what is in it, but they will not face the unpopularity of putting forward alternative measures. I agree with the noble Lord in this: that, whatever happens, there is one test only, and that is whether these measures are successful or not. That is of supreme importance. Any passing unfairness which may seem to exist will be relatively insignificant if this measure is successful in stemming what most of us realise to be a great evil at the present time, and that is the evil of inflation.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

THE RESERVE ARMY AND THE HOME GUARD
3.50 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I am afraid I have to interrupt the proceedings of the House in order to make a statement about the Reserve Army and the Home Guard. It is rather lengthy, and I apologise in advance.
As the House is aware, the Government have been reviewing modern defence requirements. The role of our Reserve Forces has changed. The conception that it would be possible to send from these islands in global war ten or twelve fully equipped Reserve divisions with their appropriate corps and army troops is no longer realistic. Therefore, the Government have decided that only two Territorial divisions will remain organised at full scale, together with the necessary supporting troops. These two divisions are required to meet our N.A.T.O. commitments. The remainder of the Reserve Army will be reorganised for the tasks which we can foresee. The House will appreciate that it is extremely hard to make exact predictions at the present time about the course of a future war. Initially the Reserve Forces will have to help maintain the life of the nation and to deal with raids, sabotage, et cetera. They must be capable of acting in the closest co-operation with the Civil Defence services. They must also provide the reserve fighting power necessary for Home Defence in all its aspects. They constitute the country's potential strategic reserve. They will therefore continue to be organised as military forces with a fighting capacity. The divisional organisation will be retained. It affords the best method of control, both operationally and geographically.
There will be no requirement for armoured divisions. The two armoured divisions and the Lowland mixed division will be converted to infantry divisions. Six armoured units will, however, be retained for the support of our N.A.T.O. divisions. The airborne division will be reduced to a parachute brigade group of about four to five battalions and the remainder of the division will be absorbed in infantry divisions. Apart from the two divisions and supporting troops available to meet our N.A.T.O. commitment and some light anti-aircraft units, there will be no requirement for non-
360
divisional artillery. Consequently a number of non-divisional artillery units will be converted to other rôles. A considerable number of Army Emergency Reserve units will have to be disbanded, but it is hoped to be able to offer the great majority of their volunteers the opportunity of transferring to other units. We fully realise that this reorganisation will involve far-reaching changes in the Reserve Army; but these changes are based on present day strategical requirements, and if the Reserve Army is to remain what it is to-day—the best Reserve Army in the world—we must keep up to date with modern developments.
The Territorial Army depends on its volunteers. Their record in the past has been unique. We feel confident that this tradition of service will continue to inspire young men to offer themselves for this important task. We are going to increase the bounty for the Territorial Army from £12 to £20 after a qualifying period of three years, and there will be similar increases for the Army Emergency Reserve. My right honourable friend knows that details of these changes are eagerly awaited. They will be given at the earliest possible moment; but if proper consultation is to take place, the detailed examination must take some time.
In 1951, the Home Guard was formed again at a time when there were virtually no fighting units in this country. During this time, the Home Guard made a most important contribution to our state of preparedness and general plans for defence. Furthermore, there is no doubt that, should war come, the Home Guard would play a most valuable part in the general scheme for the defence of this country. Details of its future role on mobilisation are now being worked out within the general pattern of Home Defence. After careful consideration it has been decided that the Home Guard shall be placed on a reserve basis. It is intended that sector commanders, battalion commanders and two other members of each battalion shall remain to keep war plans up to date and maintain the lists of those registered for service. We hope that sector commanders and battalion commanders will agree to carry on with this important work. The paid permanent staff will remain at their posts to effect this reorganisation, after which their services will no longer be required.

361
Detailed instructions will be issued very shortly.
We should like to assure the Home Guard that they will have an essential part to play in our future defence organisation, and their ability to mobilise rapidly and carry out the tasks allotted to them will be of great importance. I am sure that the whole House, whatever their personal views about the creation of the Home Guard, will wish to join me in thanking them most sincerely for their loyal and selfless service during the past five years.
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his full and detailed statement, which, of course, is far too full and far too detailed to be commented upon at any length now. We arc faced with a complete revolution in the whole strategic conception of a future war in which this country would take part. A number of questions arise, answers for which we shall have to wait until the Defence White Paper which I hope Her Majesty's Government will bring out early next year.
So far as the Territorial Army is concerned, I think this will be a bitter blow to a great many fine units and a great many officers and men. I hope Her Majesty's Government will bear that in mind and try to soften the blow, and also will ensure that no officer or man is any worse off in consequence of these changes. One point, in particular, occurs to me: when a large number of technical armoured units are converted to infantry there will be a timber of men, who hitherto have been drawing tradesmen's rates of pay, for whom there will be no room in the new establishment. What, for instance, is going to happen about these men? There will also be a large retraining commitment when a number of Royal Artillery and armoured units are converted to infantry. Nevertheless, "It's an ill wind…", and where there are reductions in permanent staff the beneficiary will be the Regular Army which has need of every single Regular officer and N.C.O. it can get.
As regards the Home Guard, it is clear that under present conditions a Reserve basis is all that is needed for this force. We can welcome the Government's decision to reduce it to this basis. Of course, both the Home Guard and the Territorial
362
Army will in the future be in the sphere of Home Defence much more than in the general strategic concept of the war, and co-operation with the civil authorities will become of even greater importance. We should all take this opportunity of paying tribute to the long and devoted service that has been given over so many years by all ranks of the Territorial Army.
LORD REA: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken, that the field which this statement covers is too wide to allow any analysis at this stage. But we welcome the statement for what it is. If, as it seems to me, it presages some general alteration in the strategic schemes, an alteration which is bound to come in this hydrogen age, and which may lessen the amount of men per unit throughout all units in all the Forces, I hope the Government will continue to bear in mind that the National Service scheme in general should always be before them. I conclude by paying a tribute from noble Lords on these Benches to the Home Guard for their good work during these past years.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, before we leave this subject, I should like to say that I entirely agree with what the noble Earl opposite said about the necessity for a debate in the New Year when the Estimates and White Papers are available. Therefore, I will at this stage keep my comments down to the minimum. I would, however, say how very welcome this statement will be, if only because it puts an end to the period of uncertainty which has continued for far too long in the Reserve Forces. That period of uncertainty is not yet over. It will take some time, as the statement said, to implement these changes. That period can be shortened if they are implemented by the War Office in close consultation with the Territorial Army associations. I hope that my noble friend will he able to give me an assurance that this will be done.
In regard to the Home Guard, here again I feel that the announcement is welcome because it puts an end to the period of uncertainty. I hope also that their new role will be worked out with close reference to the rôle of the Civil Defence services, particularly the Wardens' Service, because in the country districts those two problems are very much the same. There is one point about

363
the Home Guard about which I did not give my noble friend notice: it concerns the permanent staff. I should be most grateful if he would convey to his right honourable friend the importance of giving the Home Guard permanent staff officers sufficient notice of the time when they will be no longer required, so that they can have proper time in which to look round for new employment. There was one point that was not made quite clear in my noble friend's statement. He mentioned the bounty. The news of the bounty, which refers to other ranks, we welcome; but there were suggestions afoot for a bounty for officers. Could my noble friend give us any views on the position with regard to the proposed officers' bounty?
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their comments, which have been most helpful. No doubt we shall have a debate in the New Year on the Defence White Paper when it is published. I quite agree with noble Lords that we should wait until then before we make our detailed corn-meats. No doubt, many men—or perhaps I should say a considerable number of men—will have to transfer to other arms. Gunners will have to become infantrymen, and so on. I am afraid that is inevitable. As the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has pointed out, the Regular Army will benefit from these changes in that they will not have to provide so many permanent staff instructors to the Territorial Army. That goes without saying. In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I can inform him that consultations will take place between the Territorial Army associations on every subject. I can assure him, too, that steps will be taken to ensure that the permanent staff instructors are given plenty of notice, so that they can find other jobs. As regards the noble Viscount's question about the bounty for officers, whilst I have given the figures for other ranks, the bounty for officers has not yet been worked out. It is under active consideration, and no doubt the noble Viscount will be informed as soon as possible. I should like to thank noble Lords very much.

SUDANESE INDEPENDENCE
4.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, may I also intervene briefly in order to make a short statement on the Sudan. The Sudanese House of Representatives yesterday passed a Declaration in favour of independence, and requested the Co-domini to recognise this Declaration forthwith. It has throughout been Her Majesty's Government's desire to fall in with Sudanese wishes over the final constitutional processes. Her Majesty's Government therefore, after consultation with the Egyptian Government, have issued a statement welcoming the Declaration by the Sudanese Parliament. Her Majesty's Government are at present consulting the Egyptian Government about the formal steps which are necessary.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, I should like to welcome the statement Lord Reading has just made. As the noble Marquess has said, we have always been anxious that the Sudanese should develop along whatever lines they thought right. They have made their choice and we welcome the choice they have made. I am sure we should all wish to tender to them our hope that they may get through what is bound to be a difficult period in the inception. We should also convey to them our hope that if we can in any way at any time help them, Her Majesty's Government will be only too ready to do so.
LORD REA: My Lords, I would associate noble Lords on these Benches with the words of the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition. The Sudan, of course, has always been in a particular relationship to this country, a very favoured and rather affectionate relationship. As the noble and learned Earl has said, we are very pleased to see them at last setting up their own Government. The noble Marquess said that Her Majesty's Government have issued a statement welcoming the Declaration of the Sudanese Parliament. I am glad to think that, through the normal channels of the Press and otherwise, this welcome will reach the Sudanese as coming from all Parties in this country.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: If I may say one word more, I should like to thank noble Lords for what they have said and assure them that we realise to the full that the Sudanese have a considerable task in building up the new construction of their independent State, and that any assistance which they may ask from Her Majesty's Government will be most willingly given.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES RESTRICTION BILL
4.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this is a short Bill and can. I hope, be shortly expounded to your Lordships. The important word in the Title is the word "Restriction." This is the Bill which has been several times mentioned in your Lordships' House in the course of recent discussions which we have had on this somewhat vexed question of diplomatic immunity. Perhaps before saying what the Bill does, it would be better if I made clear certain things which it does not do. That will, I hope, have the effect of removing some false hopes and also some false fears.
First, the Bill does not apply to the Commonwealth missions in this country. Any questions between us and other countries of the Commonwealth on this matter can, as we have always found and shall no doubt continue to find, be settled by amicable discussion. The second thing it does not do is to apply to international organisations. No doubt some of your Lordships may be a little disappointed about that, but they will realise that it is not possible so to apply it, because in the case of these international organisations the adherence to the agreement setting up the particular organisation carries with it acceptance of certain principles and obligations of diplomatic immunity; and there are therefore, among the members of these various organisations,no inequalities between one and another which fall to be redressed. Another thing the Bill does not do is to extend in any way the area of diplomatic immunity in this country—indeed, it is designed to reduce it. Further, it does not take away from any British subject immunities of this kind which he or she has hitherto enjoyed. Lastly, it
366
does not contravene the long-established principle of International Law on this subject.
My Lords, the Bill has its origin in the Report of the Committee presided over, now a long time ago, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Somervell of Harrow. That Committee were appointed by the Government of noble Lords opposite, and their Report was published, I think, In 1952. Noble Lords may say that we have not rushed legislation in this matter, but a considerable amount of examination and scrutiny have been required before a Bill could be put into shape. Next, a word on what the Bill does. It gives power to Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to withdraw from any foreign diplomatic mission here personal immunities—and what those personal immunities are is defined in Clause 3 (1) of the Bill—which are in excess of those granted by the home country of the mission to members of the British mission in that country. There seems no good reason why we should give immunity, for instance, to clerks in the Ruritanian Embassy if in Ruritania no such immunity is granted to clerks in our mission there.
As a result of the passing of this Bill, of course, one of two things may happen. Either the Ruritanian Government will think it worth while to extend the existing immunity so as to cover our clerks, in preference to our withdrawing immunity from theirs under the power conveyed by the Bill, or, secondly, we shall be in a position to reduce the immunities granted by us to the Ruritanian Embassy here, so that they conform in every respect to the immunities granted to our Embassy in Ruritania. It is surely right that privileges of that kind should be reciprocal. This Bill gives us the power to enforce that reciprocity—a power which hitherto we have not enjoyed. The only other thing the Bill does is to put into statutory form what is I think an already recognised practice, and to lay down that United Kingdom citizens who are employed in foreign missions in this country shall not be entitled to claim personal immunity. But the new provision does not act retrospectively, to divest of that immunity such persons as are at present covered; it merely prevents such persons from being covered in the future.
In another place an additional provision, now subsection (2) of Clause 3,

367
was inserted. On first examination it appears somewhat cryptic, but it was put in to cover a contingency which was thought to be possible, although perhaps most unlikely. The necessity for it arose from the fact that Section 4 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, provides that every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after January 1, 1949, which was the commencing date of that Act, with the exception of persons falling within two categories, shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth. One of the exceptions is a child born of a father who, at the time of the child's birth—now I quote from the Act:
"possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies."
The purpose of this Amendment in another place (I agree that it is rather technical) was to ensure that this provision is not affected by the withdrawal of personal immunity from the father, whose immunities of an official kind are still preserved. What was in our minds in inserting this subsection (2) was that if certain of these personal immunities were withdrawn, while the official immunities, on the other hand, remained valid, it might be possible that a child of a man in that position would become a British national, whereas the children of other diplomats would remain of their own nationality. That would be an undesirable situation, and although, as I say, it may be a remote contingency, it was thought right to put in that additional subsection in order to provide against even the possibility of its coming about. My Lords, that is the short position in regard to the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Marquess of Reading).
4.17 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I think that for all too long we have gone down the wrong path—the "primrose path of dalliance"—on this question of immunities. It is high time that we turned our steps to the strait and narrow path. Speaking for myself, and I think for many noble Lords on that side of the House, I am quite satisfied that this question of diplomatic immunity
368
has got altogether out of hand. I think we shall all agree about that. Of course, it is difficult, once this position is found, to correct it. But at any rate, as a start —I will not say a change of heart, though I hope it comes to that—we see that the Government are now taking steps, albeit, so far, small, faltering steps, to put themselves on the right road to try to reduce rather than extend these immunities.
I hope that we shall have no more of these Orders in Council conferring diplomatic immunity on all sorts of people who have performed their tasks perfectly well and happily without it. Of course, it is necessary that diplomats accredited to the Court of St. James should have immunity for themselves—they always have had, and always will. But nowadays they seem to gather round them a crowd of people. I do not think that that vast congregation (if that is the right word) of people is necessary to enable them to carry out their duties effectively. Although this Bill does very little, the tendency of the Bill is rather to reduce this congregation, and from that point of view 1 welcome it. When I heard that this Bill was coming I said I would do all I could to facilitate its passage. So far as I am concerned, if the Government want to pass it through all its stages—I do not know whether that is proposed—I shall raise no objection.
The noble Marquess was good enough to refer to the last clause of the Bill, Clause 3 (2). I confess that, having read through that clause, I wondered what on earth it meant. And when I think that we are speaking the English that Shakespeare wrote I wonder whether it is really necessary to cloak our intentions in these obscure words, which I venture to say no ordinary person, unless he be the present Lord Chancellor, can hope to understand. It seems lamentable to me. I believe that ultimately a situation will arise in this country in which, after we have passed our Bills, we shall send them to some expert committee asking, "Will you please put this into English so that the ordinary man in the street, if he applies himself to it, can hope to understand it?" Before my time, in the great days, we had people like Chalmers and others drafting such Acts as the Bills of Exchange Act, the Bills of Sale Act, and the Reinsurance Act. Those were drafted in simple, limpid language. It is a most difficult thing to

369
do. I believe that one gets this obscurity of language sometimes to conceal political difficulties and sometimes because we have not clearly in mind what we want to do. Very expert people, with plenty of time at their disposal, are needed to translate these things into simple English. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in a speech on an earlier Bill this afternoon, drew attention to something which could not be comprehended. I am glad to have the noble Lord among my allies in this matter. We might well look into this to see whether we cannot produce our Statutes in somewhat simpler language.
Although this Bill does not go very far, it seems to show the sense of Her Majesty's Government. It is to-day widely felt that the present situation is too wide. The Bill is an endeavour, in certain given circumstances, to reduce the number of people affected; and, that being so, I welcome it and will certainly give it my support, if necessary, in getting it through all its stages now.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to the Resolution of December 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name. I believe it would be for your Lordships' convenience if we discussed the first, second and fourth Amendments, as they turn on the same point. The Amendments deal with a limited point, the rare and possible case of, for example, a collision occurring while a ship is in the possession of or under the control of some person for whose acts, neglects or defaults the owners and charterers of the ship are not responsible—for instance, a demise charterer whose charter has expired but who is retaining possession of the ship wrongfully as against the owner (a stale of facts which has occurred in recent history). I do not know that we have
370
quite approached the position put to me by the noble and learned Earl when he suggested, in our earlier discussion of this Bill, that I might have used the word "pirate" for "pilot"; but I believe this is a helpful Amendment and meets a possible, even though it be a rare, case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("or charterers") and insert (", charterers or persons in possession or control").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has asked me to say that he regrets he has had to go, but he is perfectly satisfied with the Amendment now proposed. May I say, as a general observation and for future occasions, that owing to the courtesy of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack all the Amendments on the Order Paper meet the points raised. in the course of the Committee stage, and they comprise also a number of Amendments which originate from the noble and learned Viscount for the purpose of improving the Bill. We on this side of the House have no particular observations to make. That may help the noble and learned Viscount to shorten the proceedings.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for what he has said. The practice which he has mentioned might be helpful to the noble Lord and to the noble and learned Earl, and it will be followed, so far as am able, in the future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment stands with the first. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("or charterers") and insert (", charterers or persons in possession or control").—(The Laid Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Mode of exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. A member of the Admiralty Bar who hears the honoured name of Bucknill has suggested that the references in subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 3 to the owner or charterer of a ship being personally liable might have the effect of excluding

371
an action in rem where the owner or charterer's liability rested on the principle of vicarious responsibility. In support he quoted a number of authorities which I am sure would instruct and amuse your Lordships; but in view of your pressing business I do not intend to read those to your Lordships at this stage. Mr. Bucknill raised a point which I thought should be dealt with, for where a doubt is raised it is better that it should be resolved so in Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6 we have dealt with this aspect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("is personally liable") and insert ("would be liable on the claim in an action in personam").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is one of the same series that I mentioned in dealing with the first Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 14, after ("of") insert ("or in possession or in control of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 falls into the second series and is consequential upon the other. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("personally liable on the claim") and insert ("who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam.") —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6, which also falls into the second series of Amendments of which I have spoken and is consequential on the others.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, at end insert—
("(7) In determining for the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) of this section whether a person would be liable on a claim in an action in personam it shall be assumed that he has his habitual residence or place of business within England and Wales.")—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Attachment of debts]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 This Amendment is on a new point. Clause 38 enables sums standing to the credit of a judgment debtor in a deposit account in a bank to be attached to satisfy the judgment debt, even though the conditions which must be satisfied before the money in the account becomes due and payable from the banker to his customer have not been satisfied. Your Lordships will see that some of the conditions which may thus be disregarded are set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), while others may be prescribed by rules of court. The most common condition, however, is the giving of so many days' notice (at present seven days') before money can be withdrawn. In the case on which Clause 38 is founded the condition about notice was irrelevant, because notice of withdrawal had in fact been given by the judgment debtor in that case. That was, however, an unusual circumstance, and it is clearly desirable that the clause should state specifically that the condition about notice may be disregarded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 15, at end insert—
("(a) any condition that notice is required before any money is withdrawn;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now direct your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 8. This arises because of a point that was put to us by the clearing banks, and I think it is a sensible point. Many of the banks have special savings bank sections primarily designed for the encouragement of small savings. The terms governing savings accounts (by whatever name they may be called) differ from those relating to ordinary deposit accounts and are similar to those of the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks, in that withdrawals up to a limited amount may be made on demand at any branch of the bank. The main reason for exempting Post Office and other savings banks from the operation of Clause 38—namely, that the banks could not comply with a garnishee order without serious administrative difficulties—applies equally to savings accounts in ordinary banks. I

373
think it was right to bring them into line with the savings banks, and we put this Amendment down to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page, 24, line 25, at end add ("or to ant account in any hank with two or more places of business if the terms applicable to that account permit withdrawals on demand, on production of a deposit book, at more than one of those places of business, with or without restrictions as to the amount which may be withdrawn").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 40 to insert the following new clause:
Execution and enforcement of judgments and orders of the Court of Appeal
". For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that any enactment (including any enactment in this Act) which authorises or requires the taking of any steps in the executon or enforcement of a judgment or order of the High Court shall apply in relation to a judgment or order of the Court of Appeal as it applies in relation to a judgment or order of the High Court."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This new clause makes it clear that any steps which are authorised or required by Statute in order to execute or enforce a judgment of the High Court are also authorised or required in relation to a judgment of the Court of Appeal. It is a curious fact that, up to now, over quite a considerable field the point has not been dealt with, for of course after a case is appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeal has to be executed or enforced. We thought that—as I am trying to do by this Bill—we ought to correct these anomalies that exist in the law. We have by this clause corrected one which I think requires so doing. I do not think that I need deal with it further. That is the main purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 40, insert the said new clause."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think that is right, but I wonder whether the same point does not also apply to judgments or orders of the House of Lords. After all, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, the Court of Appeal is not the final court of appeal. Is it not conceivable that the same position might arise as regards decisions of the House of Lords? Would the noble and learned
374
Viscount not wish to put such judgments or orders in exactly the same position?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I think that the position is (if he will allow me to state a view which I have not actually confirmed) that these judgments have to be registered in the Queen's Bench for enforcement. But if I am wrong on that, I will certainly see that the necessary action is taken when the Bill comes before another place. As I say, I think the point is covered, but I always like to check on a point like that, and I will let the noble Lord know what the position is. But he may take it that if there is anything to be done, it will be done in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Arrest of ships on the dependence of an action or in rem]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords. I now come to Amendments No. 10 and No. 11. These Amendments are directed to meeting the same point in the clause relating to the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Scottish courts as is dealt with in the case of the Admiralty Courts in England by the Amendments made in Clause 1, at page 2, line 4, and page 2, line 6. This is exactly the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 25, leave out ("or charterers") and insert (", charterers or persons in possession or control").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg formally to move the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 27, leave out ("or charterers") and insert (",charterers or persons in possession or control ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 13):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I am not going to detain the House, because I have indicated to your Lordships on more than one occasion that this Bill is a tidying-up measure which covers a number of aspects of the law. I wish to add only a few words. I think it is most important that your Lordships' House,

375
especially, should always be looking narrowly at the law and seeing that it is kept up to date and that improvements are constantly being made. Despite the variety of matters dealt with in this Bill, and the fact that some of them appear at first sight to be of no great importance—though others are of considerable importance—I submit it respectfully to your Lordships as a useful measure in helping on the improvement of the law and our legal system.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (Privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
4.40 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 13):
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hawke.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only one moment to express my thanks to the noble Lord for his courtesy in considering, as he promised to do, a point which I raised on Second Reading. I pointed out that there was a Schedule of some length containing a number of Acts which were being carried on for another year, and that it was exceedingly difficult for anybody who did not have a close familiarity with these Acts to know exactly what was being extended for another year. I suggested that a White Paper, or some document of that kind, should be circulated with the Bill. The noble Lord has been good enough to say that the Government have agreed that in future there will be a memorandum attached to such Bills explaining the purport of provisions extended for a further year. I am grateful for that promise. I think such a memorandum will make our work more intelligible—which seems to be the prevailing
376
feeling this afternoon, as the matter has been raised on a number of other measures.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his words.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

RABBITS (PROHIBITION OF SPREADING) BILL [H.L.]
4.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be now read a second time, the first proposition I should like to put before the House is that we all ought to strive for the maximum degree of productivity on our farms and in our forests. In order to get that productivity, we spend a great deal of money. We spend vast sums on national subsidies, which I believe are now in the region of £250 million a year. Part of these is spent on reducing and destroying pests. My second proposition is that rabbits are a pest. Perhaps that hardly needs stating here, but there appear to be some people who are anxious and willing to treat rabbits as something other than a pest. I have said many times here, and I say again, that rabbits are a pest. The damage they do to crops and trees is very large. I am going to be careful to avoid putting the amount of damage into figures, because I see from the Press that there has been a great deal of argument about whose figure is right. I think I should be safe in saying that the damage is very great, and leaving it at that.
During the year 1955 there has been a substantial improvement in this respect, which I think will be admitted. The damage to crops and trees has been greatly reduced. What is not so readily admitted is the cause of that improvement. There is an argument concerning how it has come about. Some say it has come about by the weather: that the wonderful summer which we have recently enjoyed has been sufficient to bring about this noticeable improvement in the productivity of our farms. Others say that it has come about through myxomatosis. I am content to assume that there is truth in both of these statements, but what I should like to submit is that myxomatosis has brought about

377
a very great deal of that improvement—how much it is needless to argue. If that is so, then it follows that the presence of rabbits is damaging to our crops and constitutes a pest. That seems to me proof positive of the great damage which rabbits have done and of the necessity for some action to be taken against them, and urgent action at that.
Not unnaturally, there is some dispute about the results of myxomatosis and whether those results are beneficial or not. I say that myxomatosis has cleric what nobody else and nothing else have succeeded in doing, and I include all the rabbit trappers who ever were employed. Rabbits have been substantially eliminated, and nothing else did it until myxomatosis arrived. This disease is an ugly and unpleasant one, which has caused a great deal of suffering to animals, but it has,increased production greatly and it has prevented a great deal of cruelty to animals. That may be incidental, but I believe it is true.
My third proposition is that rabbits have begun to return to the land. I think the evidence of that is incontestable and nobody would seriously controvert it. I have never been one of those who thought that any efforts of ours would ever exterminate the last rabbit. I think that that is a hopeless dream which is not attainable. On the other hand, I am certainly one of those who think that we must do everything we possibly can to reduce to the minimum the number of rabbits. As I said in your Lordships' House weeks ago, do not let us have both myxomatosis and rabbits. At the present day there is a national policy on this matter, and I am very glad of it Undoubtedly the national policy is to treat rabbits as a pest and to make every possible effort to reduce that pest. It includes the establishment of clearance areas. I can only repeat what I have already said: I hope that the Government will press home their efforts and make those clearance areas effective, but they are costly of public money. How much good will those areas do'? How much good will all the efforts of Her Majesty's Government do if private individuals are going to be allowed to spread rabbits in the country indiscriminately and lawfully? It seems to me that those two things are quite incompatible.
378
Now we are faced with the situation that some people want to spread rabbits throughout the country. I have beside me a file of advertisements, taken from newspapers, and most of them are signed, of those who want to buy and sell live, wild rabbits. I will not quote from them, but they are here should any noble Lord wish to see them. Quite openly and quite lawfully, people are endeavouring to spread rabbits throughout the country for their own purposes. The usual expression is for "re-stocking"—an ominous word—or for "rehabilitation." For re-stocking of what? For restocking the rabbit population which Her Majesty's Government at vast expense are engaged in trying to reduce. So we have this Gilbertian situation: that while the Ministry of Agriculture are endeavouring nobly to exterminate, individuals are at the same time endeavouring to restore the same pests. That is really an intolerable situation, and both of these actions and policies cannot be right, whatever view is taken of the merits of each.
I have asked myself who wants rabbits, and I have collected four groups at people who may want them. I have tried to think of the reasons. The first group is the fur trade. Let me say at once that that is a perfectly honourable industry, and a substantial one, too. They make our hats out of rabbit skins. The fact that one or two of us might possibly have been more ornamental if we had never worn hats is neither here nor there; and the fact that the youth of to-day seem to get on perfectly well without hats may be equally unimportant. But this trade is one that we must not despise. It is a substantial industry in this country, of an entirely honourable character, and I admit straight away that it is being hurt by the elimination of rabbits.
Next there is sport. I am not against sport—indeed, there is another kind of sport that I am extremely keen about—and I therefore sympathise with sportsmen, and especially those who quite honestly say that they are engaging in this sport because they enjoy it and because they get healthy exercise from it. But we have to face the fact that it is more than possible that the sport of rabbit shooting, and perhaps keeping dogs for rabbit shooting, may be contrary to the public interest—I think that is inescapable.

379
Then there are the housewives—and again this is a formidable and substantial matter. The housewives, I understand from reading the Press, are being deprived of cheap meat. But if you count up the true cost of this meat, is it really cheap? I should like to quote from a letter in the Daily Telegraph to-day, in which it is said:
"The loss of the rabbit has robbed country housewives of endless free meat."
It may be endless; but is it free? In my view, if the cost of these rabbits were charged in a profit and loss account it would be found to be neither cheap nor free. Again, the fact is that the countryman who feeds on his rabbit does so at somebody else's expense. Then I suppose there are those who naturally like to see rabbits gambolling about in the pastures and derive pleasure therefrom. All these, and others, I submit, have their interests in conflict with the public interest; and that is the point I wish to make this afternoon. It seems to me that there is no escape from this conflict. Look around it as we will, we cannot reconcile the interests of these people, honourable though these people may be, with the public interest, simply because their actions, though lawful, are anti-social: in short, because they are carrying on their activities at other people's expense. If farming and forestry is to be taken seriously in this country—and, of course, there was a day when it was not—and to be subsidised by the taxpayers and ratepayers of the land, in my view there can be no compromise in this matter.
So I produce this Bill, and perhaps I should say a word or two about it before I sit down. The Bill deals with wild rabbits only; it does not touch domestic or tame rabbits. In Clause I it really prohibits any form of traffic in wild rabbits in any direction. It is a small Bill, and I regard it as merely a small instalment in a very large operation. It has some critics. I would conclude by quoting two of the criticisms, because I feel it is only right that your Lordships should know that this Bill is criticised. I observed to-day, again in the Daily Telegraph, that in a letter it is stated that:
"this Bill is an invasion of the right of the individual to do what he pleases on his own property."
380
What an idea! that we have a right to do what we please on our own property. I am a landowner and a farmer, and I thought that that was a very outdated proposition; at any rate I have experienced quite a lot of things which lead me to suppose that the contrary is true. Finally —I think it was intended to refer to me, and I do not mind a bit—I am termed a "Parliamentary meddler with nature." I can only observe on that, that in Britain, at any rate—and, as your Lordships will see, this Bill covers Britain—rabbits are no more to do with nature than were gin traps. If nature had never been tampered with there would never have been any rabbits in Britain. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
5.0 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this is a short Bill but a most important one. When the Pests Bill was before this House many noble Lords thought of a number of ways in which it might be improved, but I do not think that anyone at that time foresaw that so many people would be so misguided as to try to reestablish rabbits on land that had been cleared by myxomatosis or by the farmer and his workers. As your Lordships know, it is an offence under the Pests Act to harbour rabbits in clearance areas, and if rabbits are reintroduced we can have them destroyed; but it is not an offence to introduce rabbits or to provide them for that purpose. The myxomatosis Advisory Committee advised that acts of this kind should be made illegal, and when we were debating rabbit clearance generally, on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, a short while ago, several noble Lords raised the question of making it illegal to (traffic in rabbits or to reintroduce them into areas from which they had been cleared.
I said then that we had these matters very much in mind, and that I hoped something might be done. Something has been done. My noble friend Lord Merthyr has introduced this Bill to prohibit the spreading of rabbits. I am extremely grateful to him for the promptitude with which he has done this because, in moving the Second Reading before Christmas, he has enabled me at an opportune moment to make perfectly plain the Government's attitude to this

381
highly undesirable practice. I should like to assure my noble friend that we are entirely with him in his desire to see an end of this practice and, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in another place last week, the Government hope to see early legislation on this subject and are giving immediate consideration to this Bill. My noble friend Lord Merthyr, who is a member of the Myxomatosis Advisory Committee, has a wide knowledge and experience of these matters. He has covered the ground extremely well in his opening statement, and I need not detain your Lordships any longer. I only hope that what I have said has served to make the Government's intentions in this matter perfectly clear so that there will be no misapprehensions on the part of these people who might have it in mind to spread a few rabbits about the countryside. We heartily endorse the principles of this Bill and commend it to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
5.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl opposite has said that this is an important Bill I think it is, and I am sure your Lordships will agree. Indeed I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has done a really useful public service by introducing a Bill which, if it is passed, will be of real benefit to food production and to farmers generally. I am sorry that there are not more of your Lordships here to express their appreciation of the noble Lord, but I am quite certain from past experience that there are many noble Lords who, although they are not here in person, are with him in spirit.
The whole problem of keeping down rabbits can be reduced to two simple factors. There are two things which have to be done if the rabbit population is to be kept at its present low level. One is to kill off as many rabbits as possible in areas which have had myxomatosis, and the other is to see that land which has been cleared of rabbits, or where rabbits have been reduced in numbers, is not restocked by the deliberate release of wild rabbits. It is to the second of those factors to which the noble Lord's Bill is addressed. His purpose is to prevent restocking of land with rabbits, and I think he has demonstrated the need of the Bill
382
quite clearly from the examples which he has quoted of advertisements in the Press asking for rabbits—either offering them for sale, or asking for them as objects which can be acquired by farmers and used on their land.
I was glad to note that the Minister, in reply to a Question in another place, said that he was in favour of prohibiting re-stocking of land with rabbits; and that sentiment was endorsed by the noble Earl this afternoon. I believe that it was also the advice tendered by the Myxomatosis Advisory Committee. I have no doubt that your Lordships will accept this Bill, and that it will be passed by your Lordships' House; but it is quire clear, from what we know of Parliamentary procedure. that it will not get through another place or pass into law unless the Government are prepared to give it Government time when it leaves this House. I hope it is safe to assume, from what the noble Earl said about the Government not being neutral, that the Bill will receive time, as well as the Government's blessing, when it reaches another place.
There is one other aspect of time which I should like to mention—your Lordships will agree that this time factor is all-important. The practice to which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, drew our attention is going on at the present time, and it will not stop until it has been made illegal. It is therefore essential that this Bill should pass through Parliament with the least possible delay. I have one suggestion, which perhaps the noble Earl opposite will be good enough to consider, about expediting the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. Might it not be possible, in the first place, to have the Committee stage as soon as possible after the Recess and, secondly, to shorten the usual interval between the successive stages of what is an absolutely uncontroversial measure? If, for example, there were no Amendments on the Committee stage—and I think that is quite likely to be the case—the last stages of the Bill, subject, of course, to Standing Orders, might be taken closely together.
There is just one point which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, would explain when he replies to this debate. I was not quite certain about what he meant. In the course of his remarks I think he said that his Bill dealt only

383
with wild rabbits. May I draw his attention to subsection (1) of Clause 1 of his Bill. That subsection says:
"A person shall he guilty of an offence if anywhere in Great Britain he
(a) releases any rabbit from captivity or confinement."
I take it that "any rabbit" would mean a tame rabbit, as well as a wild rabbit. I may be quite wrong; that may be a wrong interpretation. But if it is correct, perhaps the noble Lord could say that he intends to include tame rabbits, as well as wild rabbits, within the provisions of his Bill. I say, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, that we shall do everything in our power to get the Bill through our House, including curtailing our observations, with the greatest possible speed.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, may I say a word on wild rabbits? In Clause 2 the reference is to "a wild rabbit." Perhaps this is a Committee point. I have not looked up the point in the dictionary, but a "wild rabbit" is surely a rabbit that is not domesticated. We want to stop the spread of wild rabbits, and it seems to me that anybody may get wild rabbits, keep them at home and breed from them for a short time, after which, I think, they became domesticated. What is the difference between a wild rabbit and a domesticated rabbit? I think it should be just "rabbits."
5.9 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, before Lord Merthyr replies, may I say that there are one or two points which have occurred to me in regard to the Bill? My noble friend has mentioned the question of wild rabbits, which I think should be explained more fully. In regard to Clause 1 (a), in my opinion the word "live" should be inserted before the word "rabbit". I think that is the object of the Bill. With regard to Clause 1 (b), I am wondering whether it covers the selling of rabbits by auction. It is a practice, I believe, to send rabbits to the auctions, and the words in paragraph (b) are not clear to me.
With regard to Clause 2, I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us any idea as to the number of rabbits which are used year by year for the purposes referred to in that clause? Are we likely
384
to have to breed thousands and thousands of rabbits, or are the numbers fairly small? I am glad that the Bill is receiving approval from both sides of the House. As a farmer and a landowner, I never was in favour of the breeding of rabbits. The fact that rabbits have been kept down to a minimum has proved of inestimable benefit to the farming industry as a whole. I hope that those whose land has been subject to rabbit pests in the past will see to it that these pests are now kept under. It is within my experience that my own county is fairly clear of rabbits. Until a few days ago I had not seen a rabbit since the last harvest—in fact, I never saw one then, but I understood that there was one rabbit in a harvest field. About a fortnight ago, however, while motoring home through Norfolk I saw a young rabbit cross the road. I was rather perturbed, and I thought at the time, "Rabbits are coming back." But, generally, rabbits have been kept down to an absolute minimum. So far as my own county is concerned, I hope we shall continue along those lines. I may be out of order, but I should like to commend to the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill the question of rats, which are equally as bad a pest as rabbits. If we can destroy the rats as we have destroyed the rabbits, either by disease or in any other way, I am certain that we in the farming industry will benefit. I hope the Bill will have a quick passage.
5.12 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, although I may be anticipating the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, I feel that I cannot let this point pass. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, is worried about releasing a dead rabbit from confinement. It seems to me to be rather beside the point in this Bill. It is hardly necessary to put the word "live" into paragraph (a). In respect of Lord Kinnaird's question, it seems that there is in this Bill implicit permission for anybody to keep tame rabbits as much as they like, but if they release those rabbits alive from captivity or confinement, they at once become wild to an extent which could only be legally ascertained. Therefore, this Bill caters for tame rabbits as long as the noble Lord likes to keep them. If he releases them, he becomes liable under Clause (1) (b).
LORD KINNAIRD: The question is: when does a wild rabbit become a tame rabbit?
LORD REA: When you let it out.
LORD KINNAIRD: If you let it out into captivity, it is then domesticated and you can sell it.
LORD MERTHYR: First of all, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Earl who spoke for Her Majesty's Government for indicating that the Government are sympathetic to this Bill. That, of course, makes a world of difference to its progress. I am also grateful to the noble Earl who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench because it is pleasing to know that this Bill receives support from Her Majesty's Opposition. One or two small but interesting points have been mentioned. With regard to the question of when a rabbit becomes a wild rabbit (if I am right in thinking that was one of the questions), I would say that we should divide rabbits into two groups only—on the one hand, tame or domestic, and, on the other, wild. This Bill seeks to deal only with wild rabbits. In my view, if a tame rabbit is released from captivity, as mentioned in Clause (1) (a), it immediately becomes a wild rabbit. I believe that is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird—however, I gather that the noble Lord indicate; dissent. I respect his opinion, so I will certainly look into the point to see whether he is right or otherwise; but I should have thought that that was the real answer. The wording is intentional—namely, to use the word "rabbit" alone and unqualified in Clause (1) (a), and the words "wild rabbit" in Clause (1) (b).
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, for the purposes of further clarification of this provision, surely the important question is the release, of the rabbit from captivity, whether it is a tame or a wild rabbit. From a legal point of view, if it is released it will not matter whether it is tame or wild.
LORD MERTHYR: I entirely agree with the noble Earl. He has summed up the position entirely correctly. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked whether I had any information of the number of rabbits obtained for the purposes referred to in Clause 2. I regret that I have net, but
386
I will try to find out for him how many rabbits are used for those purposes. The noble Lord mentioned one matter that puzzled me. He asked, would it be necessary to breed a lot of rabbits? I should like to point out to him that all that Clause 2 does is to maintain the status quo; it does not alter the situation any way in connection with the securing of rabbits for the purposes mentioned. Therefore, I should hardly think the question of breeding rabbits for any purpose arose. Again, however, if I am wrong I will go into the question and let the noble Lord know. As for rats, I think it will be sufficient for this Bill if we deal with one particular kind of pest, leaving to another occasion the even more troublesome pest of rats. I hope I have answered some of the points that have been raised.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.