Lords Sitting of 26 July 1956

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  3.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message front Her Majesty The Queen signed by Her own hand. It is as follows:
  "I have received your Address praying that the International Organisations (Immunities ties and Privileges of the International Tin Council) Order. 1956. be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.
  "I will comply with your request."

  RUGBY CORPORATION BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
  CHERTSEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

  THE KARIBA HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME
  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 why preferential treatment should not have been given to British civil
  302
  engineering contractors tendering for contracts such as the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme in Rhodesia, which could not have been undertaken without some of the money provided having emanated in the first instance from the British taxpayer.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the contracts for the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme were put out to international tender by the Federal Power Board. This development could have been carried out only through the participation of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, who subscribed £28 million out of the total of £80 million. The Bank's normal practice is to insist that contracts for which they provide part of the finance must go to international tender. From this general policy we do in practice gain a great many, dollars from different parts of the world. Moreover, it is not normally the policy of Her Majesty's Government to insist on tied loans, because it gives a had example to other countries, and on the whole we stand to gain most by encouraging the general practice of open international tender. It is clearly to our advantage in the long run that the great advantages of the Kariba Dam should be available to Rhodesia at the earliest time and at the lowest cost.
  In this particular case, while the Italian contractors have gained one major contract, substantial sub-contracting will take place in this country which, together with the £5 million contract for turbines, generators and transformers, is the most valuable part of the contract from the point of view of our home economy. We may regret the specific result of this contract. but open international tender is a practice from which we believe we have far more to gain than to lose.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the fullness of that reply. In view of the concern widely held about this matter, and since his reply is based on the assumption that lower-paid salaries and wages of contractors of other countries operating in British territory will enable them to obtain low-price contracts, I would ask him whether there could not be some review of the policy which he has outlined for projects for which only a part of the sum is being

  303
  provided by the International Bank. May I also ask him whether it is correct that, out of the £28 million subscribed by the International Bank towards the total of £80 million which he quoted as being available for this contract, £10 million is provided by British sources; so that the amount is £18 million on £80 million—I repeat, £18 million on £80 million—and the tender is won by a foreign contractor because of the lower-paid salaries of the personnel employed in the execution of the contract in British territory?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is correct in saying that, of the £80 million, £28 million was supplied by the I.B.R.D., and of that, of course, £10 million was sterling releases.
  LORD BARNBY: I thank the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would simply say this to the noble Lord. We are living in a competitive world, and if we think we can live in a closed economy, I am sure we shall find, in the long run, that it will not work. In the long run, it behoves us to see that our efficiency makes up, as it can do over a wide field, for the better standards in wages and conditions of labour which exist in this country.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Will the noble Earl make it widely known that the Government have abandoned the principle of Imperial Preference?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think that is outside the Question I have been asked to-day.

  SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AT ATOMIC PLANT
  3.12 p.m.
  VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received full information of accidents in atomic energy plants in Canada and in the United States of America; whether any of these accidents have occurred in breeder plants like the one in Caithness; what new safeguards against
  304
  such accidents have been adopted in the light of practical experience during the past year; and whether atom plants in this country are covered by insurance.]
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, information on accidents in atomic energy plants is exchanged between the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the corresponding bodies in the United States of America and Canada. During last year an experimental breeder reactor in the United States was accidentally allowed to overheat and sustained some damage. I understand that there were no injurious effects outside the installation.
  The Authority have incorporated in their fast breeder reactor in Caithness all the safety devices which their knowledge and experience suggest are necessary. With the growth of this experience. critical surveys of the precautions are constantly being made and modifications introduced. Some such modifications to the design have been made during the past year. The Authority are almost wholly financed from monies voted by Parliament, and they follow the practice of Her Majesty's Government in not insuring their plants.
  VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his very reassuring answer to the Question.

  AIR COMMUNICATION WITH MOSCOW
  3.14 p.m.
  VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received an assurance from the Soviet Government that they are not discriminating in the matter of direct flights between Moscow and the capitals of other countries, against our nationalised corporation and in favour of the private companies of other countries; and what stage the negotiations have reached with the Soviet Government about direct flights between London and Moscow.]
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the only air lines operating to Moscow from outside the Iron Curtain are the Scandinavian air line, S.A.S., and the Finnish air line, Finnair. Last May the Soviet Government also issued an invitation to the American air line, Pan-American Airways, to discuss the establishment of services to Moscow. In November of last year, British European Airways entered into negotiations with the Russian air line, Aeroflot, and an inter-line agreement was reached by which the two air lines are enabled to sell through-tickets which will be valid on the air line of the other operator. Last month an invitation was issued by Her Majesty's Government to the Soviet authorities to discuss the possibility of the establishment of a direct link between London and Moscow. Although a formal reply has not been received by Her Majesty's Government, we none the less hope that these negotiations will take place shortly. In these circumstances, it is. I think, premature to make any comment on possible difficulties, referred to in the early part of the Question, which have not yet arisen and which I see no reason to suppose ever will arise.
  VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Answer, will he agree that an arrangement for joint working of a route between London and Moscow, and between a Russian company and a British air corporation, would be no substitute for direct flights between London and Moscow? Will he also urge upon the Soviet Government— I am not asking him to do so to-day, but when he thinks the time is right—that to deny to a British air corporation facilities which are now being granted, as he tells us, to two other companies and which have been offered to a third company, would be discrimination which would be justly resented in this country?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's point, but I think he is going a little far. What I have said is that air lines from the Scandinavian countries and from Finland are operating. Their relations with the Soviet Union have always been very different from those of the other Western European Powers, and, so far as I know, no other Western European Power has yet arranged the organisation of a route; nor do we know that that is to happen. So
  306
  it will be seen that at the present time these matters are all in the future. I would agree, however, with the first part of the noble Viscount's question—namely, that it would be much more satisfactory to have a direct link, rather than a link running through two lines through some European country.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, whilst everyone, I think, appreciates the admirable work done by our air department in this matter, would the noble Earl address himself to one of the obstacles—namely, the possible intervention of the West German Government in their attempt to boycott the East German Government in regard to the airfield at Schönfeld?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the elements of that question strike me rather as being related to foreign policy, and not strictly dealing with the subject of airlines. I am not aware that there is any substantial difficulty of that. kind which would prevent a direct link between London and Moscow.

  ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

  VALUATION AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  3.18 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything that will hold up the passage of this important Bill— indeed, I think the sooner it appears on the Statute Book the better for Scotland as a whole. At the same time, there is one point, and one point only, upon which I should like to make an appeal to

  307
  the noble Lord the Minister of State for Scotland, and that is the recommendation made by the Sorn Committee about the payment by the Exchequer of 50 per cent. towards the cost of setting up the valuation machinery which will become necessary under this new Bill. I am aware that when this matter was raised on the Committee stage in another place the Secretary of State said—and I now quote from Column 164 of the Report of the debate which took place on the 6th March of this year:
  "I make it clear that if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue had the job it would be cheaper because the cost would he carried by the Exchequer grant and the general taxpayer. I do say I can hold out no hope of its being paid by the Government. or of 50 per cent. being so paid if the matter were retained in the hands of local authorities. It had always been a local authority function and it was the Government's view that if local authorities preferred to retain those functions they would have to continue to pay. I said there was the alternative of the Inland Revenue."
  The noble Lord will be aware that in their Report the Sorn Committee tabulated four reasons why, in their view, it was necessary and important that this matter of machinery should be proceeded with. With your Lordships' permission I will read out those four reasons, in order to make clear their importance—they appear in paragraph 83 of the Report:
  "The solution that we recommend to this question is:
  (i) that provision should be made in administrative schemes to be prepared by local authorities for the employment of full-time qualified assessors with adequate staff in all parts of Scotland; (ii) That local authorities unable reasonably to support such appointments by themselves should combine; (iii) That a Central Advisory Council or Board, including local authority representatives, should be appointed by the Secretary of State to assist him in the supervision of these arrangements and (iv) that an Exchequer grant of 50 per cent. should be payable by the Secretary of State on the cost of approved valuation staffs and their expenses."
  I believe that I voice what is a quite definite feeling among members of assessors' staffs in Scotland when I say that, owing to the fact that under this Bill they will all terminate their employment on the passing of this Act, and new appointments will be made of qualified assessors' staffs of a smaller number of valuation areas than at present exist, and also because existing valuation areas have
  308
  the feeling that they are being put to a good deal of trouble and expense, and see no hope of recovering any of the expense which they will incur, there is a real danger that there may be a hold-up in introducing this new machinery.
  It seems to me that if we are to ensure the smooth running of this very complicated machinery which is to be set up there should be some form of encouragement from Her Majesty's Government, at least to the extent recommended by the Sorn Committee. One knows, of course, that the amount of collected rates meets only about one half of the total expenditure of local authorities, the remainder, or the greater part of it, being money paid by the Exchequer in the form of grants and so on. Her Majesty's Government have already been in the habit of paying 50 per cent. of the cost of preparing electoral registers, and therefore I fail to see how Her Majesty's Government can say, as I believe they have said, that now to make a 50 per cent. Exchequer grant towards the cost of the assessors' set-up would be creating a precedent. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that in fact Her Majesty's Government are already doing this with the electoral rolls, so that they would not be creating a precedent. Even if they were, however, the advantage to the Exchequer through the effect upon equalisation grants resulting from this better system of valuation in the long run would result in a saving to the Treasury, so that there would be no loss. At the same time Her Majesty's Government would be encouraging the new assessing area groups to go ahead with the setting up of their administrative machinery without this feeling of obstruction or annoyance.
  I know that in this House, because of the somewhat antiquated view that your Lordships cannot be trusted to spend public monies and that that must be left wholly to another place, one cannot move an Amendment which would involve payment of monies, but I would ask that, so far as he can, the noble Lord should bring before the Secretary of State the representations that I have submitted, to see whether, by some means or other, even at this late stage, he cannot persuade those in charge of the purse strings to meet this very small additional expenditure and thereby, in my view, help to

  309
  smooth the running of this new and valuable piece of administrative machinery.
  3.27 p.m.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken raised this question on the Second Reading debate, and at that time I replied, in the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that in view of the choice that had been given to local authority associations and the choice they had made between continuing the service as a local authority service or having it transferred to the Inland Revenue, I did not see why, when they chose that it should remain a local authority service, the Treasury should be involved in paying a grant in that connection.
  The noble Lord has to-day stressed the advisability of paying such a grant in order to smooth the work of setting up this new scheme. I cannot possibly believe that local authorities, which are highly responsible bodies, would endeavour in any way to hold up the working of an Act of Parliament which has received great support both in this House and in any other place and which is admittedly of very great value to Scotland. Therefore I do not think that argument hears much weight. There is nothing that I can add to what I have previously said in regard to the representations of the noble Lord. As he has said, the matter was fully considered in another place, and the reply of the Secretary of State has been quoted by the noble Lord. I cannot hold out any hope that at this date it would even be possible to make any alteration in the Bill as it now stands, although I. will, of course, see that the representations which he has made this afternoon are conveyed to my right honourable friend.
  3.29 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad to note the last comment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the representations of my noble friend Lord Greenhill will be conveyed to the Minister. I fully agreed with the recital of the financial restrictions upon your Lordships' House but I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Greenhill in regarding those restrictions as antiquated. In fact, those of us who have seen their relevancy do not wish to be placed in the category of those who take that view. The point raised by
  310
  my noble friend, in what seemed to me a reasonable speech, would be a great help, in that if there is to be delay through inadequate arrangements for the appointment of the new assessors, because of finance, or if only a limited number of candidates come forward on what local authorities can offer, then perhaps the representations of Scottish local authorities might at least be considered by Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords. The point with regard to limited numbers of candidates coming forward does not, I think, arise, because, so far as can be seen at this moment, the question is rather one of sufficient openings for the number of gentlemen already in post. It may be that they will not all have the necessary qualifications. I do not think that the question of delay on the part of local authorities should be given any weight in this argument, because I am sure that no responsible body such as a local authority would act in any way contrary to the will of Parliament.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  SANITARY INSPECTORS (CHANGE OF DESIGNATION) BILL
  3.32 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I at once say that I have the honour to be one of the Vice-Presidents of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, and to that extent I have an interest. On the other hand, I also have the honour to be one of the Vice Presidents of the Association of Municipal Corporation; and, as your Lordships know, Municipal Corporations employ sanitary inspectors. This Bill comes to us from another place and was sponsored by Sir Wavell Wakefield, who, of course, sits on the Government Benches. It passed through all its stages without opposition until the Third Reading when, it is true, sonic discussion arose. Perhaps, however, your Lordships will allow me to say that in this discussion the Bill was supported by Mr. Blenkinsop, who in the Labour Government was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and who therefore would know

  311
  the mind of the Ministry upon this matter at that time.
  Quite briefly, there are four main reasons why I venture to commend this Bill to your Lordships. First, the change of designation was recommended by the Working Party in its report on The Recruitment, Training and Qualifications of Sanitary Inspectors. The Chairman of this Working Party was Sir John Maude, who I need not tell your Lordships was a distinguished civil servant. The other members were Dr. Beattie, principal medical officer of the Ministry of Health; Dr. Burnett, medical officer of health, Preston; Mr. Lewis, senior sanitary inspector, Pontardulais Rural District Council; Mr. White, who I believe had some connection with Civil Service organisations; Mr. Williams, chief sanitary inspector, Coventry, and Mr. Fuller, Ministry of Health, Secretary.
  This Working Party was assisted by a very distinguished steering committee, and I suggest that it would be quite true to describe it as an extremely able and competent body of men, with a wide and varied experience of local government problems. I think it would be quite fair to say, too, that the Working Party was in no way weighted in favour of sanitary inspectors. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote just three short extracts from the Report that was made. This is the first:—
  "The word 'sanitation', it is said, though, as a matter of etymology, it means the same as 'health' has in popular parlance come to be connected with drains, sewers, water closets and the like, and to bear that restricted meaning: and this, it is argued, leads to a quite inadequate and partial view of the wide scope of the work of these officers."
  The second quotation is:—
  "Again, the Sanitary Act of 1866 and earlier Acts bearing similar titles were replaced by Public Health Acts and both in the language of the Legislature and elsewhere public health 'has replaced 'sanitation' in this connection. And while the meaning of 'sanitary' has become narrower the scope of the sanitary inspector's duties has broadened and the word has thus become something of a misnomer. For this reason we consider that the case for substituting 'public health' for 'sanitary' in the designation has been made out and we are in favour of this change."
  The third quotation is:—
  "We recommend, accordingly, that the present designation should be replaced by that of 'Public Health Inspector'."
  This Report was presented in 1953, so that no one can claim that the men con-
  312
  cerned have pressed your Lordships and others with undue haste to ask for an implementation of the recommendations.
  I pass to the second reason why I commend this Bill to your Lordships—I can state it quite briefly. It is that the officers concerned are strongly in favour of the change. The third reason is that Her Majesty's Government's Ministry of Health support the change. The fourth reason—and this I would urge most strongly—is that in the considered opinion of those whose views are entitled to respect the change will materially assist in recruitment to this essential branch of the local government service which is at present seriously under-staffed. When I recalled the famous letter to The Times of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, on the use, or rather the misuse, of the word "target", I had hoped and expected that the writer of a letter which must have delighted anyone who has some concern for the proper use of words would have supported this Bill. I am sure the noble Lord has noticed the ambiguity that lurks in the term "sanitary inspector". The ambiguity arises from the fact that the word "sanitary" is an adjective; and. if my memory is correct, an adjective is a word that expresses a quality or feature of a person, animal or thing. Need I develop that argument any further?
  Just one further word on another point. There has been, I know, some discussion whether the word "inspector" should be replaced with the word "officer". The Working Party rejected that suggestion, and in my view they did so quite rightly because, after all, these men are part of the staff of a public health department, the officer in charge of the public health department is the medical officer of health, and I am certain that the medical officer of health, for quite good and obvious reasons, would not consent to the title or term of "public health officer". I apologise to your Lordships for taking up so much of your time. I can assure the House that the officers concerned feel most keenly on this matter, and I venture to hope, for the reasons I have endeavoured to advance to your Lordships, that the Bill will commend itself to your Lordships and that you will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Burden.)
  3.40 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has moved the Second Reading of this Bill with his usual charm and persuasiveness, and on every personal ground it would be far more agreeable to me to support him than to oppose him, but I do not think that I can possibly do so. Before this House gives a Second Reading to this Bill, I think that it should be satisfied on three points. I think I can put them most shortly by saying that we ought to ask ourselves three questions;—first, is the old title "sanitary inspector" wrong or objectionable? Secondly, is the proposed new title right? Thirdly, is the matter of such importance as to justify legislation on this one single point? The third question only arises if the answer to the first two questions is Yes.
  Let us consider the first two questions. Is there anything wrong about the expression "sanitary inspector"? The words mean an inspector concerned with matters affecting health. That describes the work of these useful and excellent people concisely and accurately. What then is the trouble? Apparently this: that though the word "sanitary" does in fact mean exactly what is required, an increasingly ignorant public thinks that it means something else—namely, concerned with drains. What is alleged is, in effect, this. Being increasingly ignorant both of Latin and of English, people think, when they hear the word "sanitary", not of health but of sewers. It would be a melancholy thought if years of compulsory education had resulted in our people becoming more and more ignorant of the meaning of words, and if every few years Parliament had to pass an Act to deal with, or pander to, their increasing illiteracy.
  How new and modern is this ignorance? The passages in the report of the Working Party, from which some quotations have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, are all found on page 66. May I say in passing that I hope your Lordships will forgive me if front now on I refer to the civil servants who produced that: report as a committee and not as a "Working Party". It seems to me that a committee of civil servants is rather foolishly described as a Working Party—it suggests that civil servants might collect together as an idle party, which I think is a libel on the Civil Service. As they pointed out on the page to which
  314
  I have alluded, this expression "sanitary inspector" is not a very old one. As recently as 1921—only thirty-five years ago—the Public Health (Officers) Act. 1921, substituted the term "sanitary inspector" for the older title of "inspector of nuisances" for the country generally, though in London the title had been employed since 1891. Have people really become so much sillier since 1921. that they can no longer understand the language of their fathers? I believe that is a slander on our people. The answer, therefore, to our first question is: there is nothing wrong with the expression "sanitary inspector".
  I now turn to the second question: is "public health inspector" right? Let me say at once that I think it is obviously wrong. The verb "inspect" is a transitive verb. You inspect something. If you put some noun before "inspector" the suggestion is that that is what the inspector is inspecting. We can have a weights and measures inspector or a ticket inspector, but, whatever it is that these admirable men inspect, it is not public health. No doubt they promote public health, but they do not inspect it. To do justice to these excellent men, the new term which it is proposed to thrust upon them is not the one for which they ask. If noble Lords will refer to page 66 of this report they will find that the sanitary inspectors objected no less to the term "inspector" than they did to the term "sanitary". The committee—I hope your Lordships will not mind my calling it the committee—backed them in their first objection to the word "sanitary" but turned down their second objection. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that the committee might well have been right in rejecting "public health officer",since that expression might be liable to cause considerable confusion. But at least "public health officer" would have made sense, while "public health inspector" makes nonsense. I think that your Lordships should hesitate before passing into law what is admitted nonsense.
  The noble Lord, Lord Burden, made a moving plea. He said that these men would like the Bill to be passed and would be discouraged if it were not. I find that plea most moving and I should like to help these men. If only they wanted us to do something less than

  315
  exceed the stupidity limit in legislation, for I think that is what they are doing! I wonder whether they are right in their own interests in asking for this change. It really did not help the rat-catchers when they persuaded the local authorities to call them "rodent operatives". I understand that that is the expression used by most local authorities, though I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, to make a slight change, calls them rodent operators. But let us consider the title used by the local authorities. The rat-catcher has become the rodent operative. What is a rodent operative? He is a workman with prominent front teeth in the habit of gnawing—or, more technically, a workman with strong incisor and no canine teeth. I really doubt whether the rat-catchers have done much good for themselves by persuading the local authorities to give them this new title. They have excited considerable public ridicule which is not tending to diminish, but at least it can be said for them that they did not produce a Bill to go through both Houses of Parliament saying that the rat-catcher must in future be designated "rodent operative". lf they had, I think that there would have been a vigorous response in both Houses. It has been said that the Royal Sanitary Institute has changed its name to the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. Why should they not do so if they wish? That change still describes accurately what they are, but, as I have explained, this proposed change introduces an absurdity.
  I think that I must allude to what happened on this Bill in another place, because noble Lords may not have looked up the proceedings of another place. What happened is more understandable to those noble Lords who served for many years in another place, but I can explain it briefly to your Lordships. By, I think, a lucky or unlucky chance, the Bill was never discussed at all on Second Reading. It received a Second Reading on the nod, I think because those who wished to object were not present, or not sufficiently awake.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: That was their fault.
  LORD CONESFOR: Yes, certainly. It went to a Standing Committee, where on the first occasion it was unable to
  316
  obtain a quorum. On the second occasion it did obtain a quorum, but as nobody wished (and I am sure nobody would wish here) to amend the short Bill in any way, no Amendment was made. Therefore, the first discussion on the merits of this Bill took place in the Third Reading debate, which started shortly before ten o'clock last Wednesday night. That was a most remarkable debate. Eleven Members took part: seven were against the Bill, and four were in favour —I believe those figures are right. The division of opinion was by no means on Party lines. Of those who spoke against the Bill, five were members of the Opposition, and two were Conservatives. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that both Mr. Blenkinsop and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Health supported the Bill, but I would invite the attention of your Lordships to those who opposed it. Those who opposed the Bill included several ex-Ministers of the Party opposite, including one name that I think carries considerable weight, not only because he has held high office, but because he admittedly has had a long experience of local government: I refer to Mr. Chuter Ede. I invite any noble Lord who is in any doubt as to the merits of the Bill to read that short debate.
  I venture to put one further point to the House, which no one raised in another place, but which, I think—and your Lordships may think too—is of some importance. This Ministry of Health report, which is the basis of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, made thirty-one separate recommendations. In a Written Answer given on April 29, 1954, the then Minister of Health, my right honourable friend Mr. Iain Macleod, gave this Answer—and I shall read it so that there can be no doubt that I am giving it fairly [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 526, col. 161]:
  "I and my colleagues, who are concerned with the work of sanitary inspectors have now considered the report and I propose to discuss it with the interested bodies with a view to implementing the Working Party's proposals. It should not be inferred that I necessarily accept all the detailed recommendations of the Working Party."
  In other words, the Government of the day gave general approval to those recommendations, which I would remind your Lordships were thirty-one in

  317
  number. Twenty-nine of those thirty-one recommendations did not involve legislation, but two of them did.
  I want to read, first, from a summary of the recommendations, paragraph 307 of the Report, "Recommendations requiring legislation." The first subparagraph says:
  "Evidence of having passed a qualifying examination should be obligatory for all new appointments in England and Wales."—
  and reference is made to paragraph 251, which I will read in a moment. The second sub-paragraph says:
  "The designation of a sanitary inspector should he altered to public health inspector."
  I will now read the passage from paragraph 251, the other recommendation which requires legislation. It says:
  "We have referred in Chapter 2 to the fact that the present basic qualification, the Certificate of the Examination Board, is obligatory in London but is only a condition of grant outside London. We sec no advantage in the continuance of this distinction and accordingly recommend that when a suitable opportunity occurs to amend the statute law on this subject the London. system should be applied to the whole country and any sanitary inspector subsequently appointed should be required to hold such certificate as the Minister may approve. We assume that the certificate approved for this purpose will be the certificate to be awarded to persons who pass the new qualifying examination which we have recommended above."
  In other words, this committee made two recommendations needing legislation: one dealt with the qualifications of sanitary inspectors, which they said should be included in legislation when a convenient opportunity occurred, and the other dealt. with designation. Can any noble Lord in any quarter of the House see any reason at all why you should legislate on designation before you legislate on qualification? Possibly you should legislate on the two together, but that the recommendation dealing with qualification should be ignored while that dealing with designation should be enacted immediately, is, I suggest, not a sensible thing to propose to Parliament.
  If we reject this Bill to-day, as I think we should, it will make little difference to the passage of this change into law, if the other place sees fit next Session again to pass such a Bill. From such consultation as I have been able to have in the short time at my disposal with persons interested on both sides of politics in another place, I believe there are a great
  318
  many in all quarters of that House who would very much welcome a chance of further consideration. I do not think for one moment, if they are given this chance, that they will again allow this Bill to go through without any discussion on Second Reading, and I am certain that Members on both sides in politics will raise the point I have just put before your Lordships, to seek an explanation before they allow this change to pass into law. I am sure that the three questions I asked at the beginning, only two of which actually arise on the facts, arc the questions that any responsible legislative assembly should ask itself before it passes such a measure into law. It is not true that there is any objection to the existing phraseology, other than an alleged public ignorance of its meaning, and it is demonstrably true that the change proposed, which is not that for which these men themselves ask, is illogical and absurd. I beg to oppose.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, as an ex-President of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, which is one of the oldest and largest associations of local government officers in the country, I feel that I should say a word or two on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is quite wrong in a number of the things he has said. As I understand it, this Bill is not inspired by the Sanitary Inspectors' Association; it is a Private Member's Bill, brought forward, I presume, on his own volition by the Member in another place, and passed by the other place without a Division. That is the essential factor which the noble Lord has omitted to mention to this House.
  LORD CONESFORD: I did mention it.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In the Committee—not on Third Reading.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Without a Division at any stage of the proceedings in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, raised three questions. I do not think I need deal with the third, as to the importance of the matter. because he himself has obviously spent a great deal of time in looking into the question. and a quarter of an hour of your Lordships' time—which he is perfectly entitled

  319
  to do. In the opinion of the noble Lord, therefore, the matter is obviously of some importance. The first question the noble Lord asked was whether the present title is wrong. I would respectfully submit to your Lordships that it is clearly wrong, because to-day it does not represent the functions performed by sanitary inspectors. Contrary to the noble Lord's view as expressed to-day, the nomenclature, "sanitary inspector", is something like one hundred years old, and the functions of sanitary inspectors in the old days were entirely different from what they are to-day.
  I can remember when I was a young solicitor being clerk for a short time to a small local authority. The sanitary inspector there earned £3 a week, and he combined with his duties of sanitary inspector those of building inspector and a number of other duties of one sort and another. In those days, the functions were very few. Nowadays they are substantial, and this present Government, I may remind your Lordships, have imposed a great many additional duties on sanitary inspectors under the Food and Drugs Act, the Clean Air Act, and the various Housing Acts, under which they have important duties to perform. I would submit that the functions of these officers nowadays are entirely different from what they were in the old days, and that the present name does not in any way represent the functions which they carry out.
  I would remind your Lordships that quite a number of changes of this sort have been made. Many of your Lordships can remember when we did not have a Ministry of Health, which was formed some thirty odd years ago. I remember the Army book on hygiene, which is now the Army Health Book, or words to that effect. The Institution of Sanitary Officers has changed its name to the Institution of Public Health Engineers. Furthermore, the Ministry of Health, as I understand it, have accepted the position as put forward by the Working Party. I regret the animadversions which the noble Lord thought fit to cast upon the members of a body who sat voluntarily for more than a year.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the last thing I would do would be to cast any animadversions on them. They were
  320
  a most distinguished body. The only words that I criticised were, "Working Party". That expression originally came from the Army, where it had a definite meaning, but to describe a committee of civil servants as "a Working Party" is foolish, because, when civil servants get together to discuss things, of course they are working. They always work. I suggest "a committee" is a better phrase.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: When the noble Lord was a member of the Government in another place I have some recollection of his own Ministry appointing more than one Working Party. My submission to your Lordships is that the present terminology, "sanitary inspector", does not represent the functions carried out by these officers. This Bill is not brought forward by the Association. although, as my noble friend Lord Burden has said, it is wholly approved by them. We do not want to go back to the eighteenth century in which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—if he will forgive me for saying so—lives to some extent. We must move with the times and call officers by the appropriate term which accurately describes their functions. In those circumstances, and particularly as I understand the Government will, in accordance with what the Ministry of Health have said, approve of this Bill, I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I ask him whether he feels that the responsibility of the Government is engaged in the passage of this measure, or does he not think that, having regard to its origin—a Private Member's Bill from another place—and having regard to the character and scope of the Bill, it might be left to a free vote of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR. COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the noble Viscount will hear the nature of my comment on this Bill and have an answer to his question. It is the custom, I believe, for a spokesman of the Government on a Bill of this kind to give some guidance to the House as to what the attitude of the Government might be. I cannot escape it on this Bill in particular because in another place my colleague

  321
  in the Ministry of Health gave her approval to the Third Reading.
  On first sight I am bound to say that this Bill offended against the small amount of my classical education which is left. But I cannot help recollecting that our grandfathers' perfectly proper preoccupation with smells and drains led to a narrowing of the definition of the word "sanitary" in the public mind. When my noble friend Lord Conesford asks "Is this word objectionable?", I do not know whether it is objectionable to the general public, but it is objectionable, so we are told, to those who at present are called sanitary inspectors, and they want to alter it. The noble Lord went on to say, as I understood him, that the phrase "public health inspector" is meaningless. I am not so sure. These inspectors inspect masses of meat for instance, and masses of ice cream. I imagine the noble Lord would say that an inspector can inspect a particular individual's health. If the noble Lord had swallowed the meat and an inspector inspected him, then he would be a private inspector of health inspecting an individual's heath. But he has to inspect these masses of products which affect the health of some thousands of people maybe on one given day, and I do not think it is stretching the terms too far to call him a "public health inspector." If the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, can swallow words like "automation" and "breeder reactor" without protest. I should not have thought he need jib at this comparatively modest alteration.
  LORD CONESFORD: May I assure my noble friend that I objected strongly to "automation" in a public speech the very first time I saw it in print.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I conclude that in these modern days there is little to choose between the word "sanitation" and the word "health". Sometimes it is appropriate to use one and sometimes the other. In a month or two, I hope to see the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, come back robust and sunburnt from his holiday. I shall meet him in the corridor and say to him, "How well you are looking." If I said, "You are obviously bursting with sanitation", his agile classical mind would go back to his Virgil, but some of the more technological of your Lordships would be confused and
  322
  think that I had committed some sort of solecism. Therefore, I personally come down, as do the Government, on balance, on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Burden. Sanitary inspectors want the change—they find "sanitary" objectionable. The Working Party recommended "public health inspector", and certain august bodies have changed their names from bodies formerly sanitary to bodies which are now healthy. I think the word, "health" is a good old English word, although it has not a classical derivation, so far as I know. It is sometimes good to see ourselves as others see us. it has just occurred to me, who is Lord Cones-ford or, indeed, who are your Lordships to prevent people from changing their names if they wish?
  On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  HOTEL PROPRIETORS BILL
  4.10 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of; the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments and the Commons consequential Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that the Commons Reason and the consequential Amendment be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments and the Commons consequential Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Derwent.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Note.—The references are to Bill (122) as first printed for the House of Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]
  LORDS AMENDMENT
  Clause 2 page 2, line 21, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
  Because the Amendment would increase the aggregate liability of the proprietor of an hotel in the case of loss or damage to property brought to the hotel to a figure unreasonably in excess of the existing law.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I rise to move that this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed. I regret, and I know that your Lordships will regret, that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, cannot be here to-day to deal with what I hope will be the final stages of this Bill, as he has piloted the Bill so ably up till now through your Lordships' House. Unless the House wishes otherwise, I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of your Lordships' Amendment—it has been argued very fully twice —but I should like to go briefly into the history of this Amendment. When this Bill came to your Lordships first from another place, the maximum liability under Clause 2 of this Bill for an hotel proprietor towards any one guest was £100. That was the figure, incidentally, recommended by the Law Reform Committee and that was the figure which the other place had found to be a suitable figure.
  On the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, moved an Amendment to increase the amount of £100 to £200. This Amendment was resisted by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. It was taken to a Division and the Amendment was negatived by a majority of three votes. On the Report stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, introduced a similar Amendment. It was resisted by my noble friend and again taken to a Division, but this time the Amendment was agreed to by a majority of three votes. So that, when this Bill went back to the other place, the figure of £200 had been inserted in the Bill instead of the original £100. The Commons have now disagreed to your Lordships' Amendment after further debate, and they have stated that they think that £100 was the proper figure to put in the Bill. I would suggest to your Lordships that, as the views of your Lordships are apparently so evenly balanced and as the other place have twice given their view in the same direction that £100 should stay, this is a suitable opportunity for your Lordships to agree with the other place.
  Moved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Derwent.)
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, as the mover of the Amendment in this House which was carried, I do not propose to ask the House to insist upon the Amendment which we proposed and carried, but I think a word or two is opportune on this subject. This is not a question of high principle; it is a question on which any Member of your Lordships' House is competent to express an opinion when he has heard the arguments. I agree that this House was evenly divided on Committee stage. There was a majority of three against the view of this Amendment. On the Report stage there was the same majority in its favour. The composition of the vote was not a Party one in any sense. I think it would not have been carried at all but for the votes of noble Lords on the other side. It was carried against the advice of Her Majesty's Government and against the very weighty advice of the noble and learned Viscount. I think it is the only time that this House has not accepted his advice in toto. I say that this is a matter upon which we are perfectly competent to express a view and quite as competent as another place to do so. Therefore, on the face of it, there is no reason whatever why their view should prevail. This is not a matter on which the mandate of the country has been obtained. It is a simple issue and we could, if we chose, insist upon having our way. I do not rise in order to discuss the Constitution but I think we should be perfectly within our rights if we said, "We have carried this and we think we are right."
  But I rather resent the language and the atmosphere in which this measure was discussed in another place. Members in another place were asked to reject this Amendment on three grounds. The first was that we did not understand the background—in other words, that we did not really know what we were talking about. I have expressed the view, and I am sure your Lordships will agree, that, whatever else one may say about it, the issue was a perfectly simple one. It is not very easy not to understand it, and I am sure that your Lordships did understand it. There may have been a good deal of background, but really the background was quite irrelevant to the decision at which we arrived.
  The second ground was that it was against a recommendation of the Law

  325
  Reform Committee. So it was: but then I hope that your Lordships will often vote against the advice of a committee if your Lordships feel so disposed. After all, we are the legislators. Committees advise us and, generally speaking, we accept their advice; but there are times when we are perfectly entitled to consider their advice and to reject it or to modify it. Your Lordships have taken advantage of this freedom on this occasion and I am sure your Lordships were right so to do. It is very healthy for committees to find that we do not swallow every word that they recommend and that we have a mind of our own.
  The third reason that was offered was that the majority was such a small one. Of course it was a small majority, but, after all, if we do not act on the views of the majority we must act on the views of the minority. I think the fact that it was earned by a majority after further consideration on Report is an indication that this House really wanted this Amendment. I rather deplore the fact that this sort of language should be used about the efforts of your Lordships' House. Within our very limited lights, we try to do our best to act as a revising Chamber, to scrutinise Bills and to put forward our views. The other place is entitled to disagree with us, especially, as I have said, on matters on which it is open to have a different view, but they are not entitled to impugn our capacity or our right to form a judgment. If they had merely said that they took a different view and left it at that, I should have been content to let it go without even inflicting a speech on your Lordships, but, in the circumstances, I feel it right to express my view about the dignity of this House and to assert the right of this House to disagree with the other place if it is so minded.
  4.19 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am sure that none of your Lordships will grudge the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the time which he has most usefully spent in addressing us on this Bill, because I had urged not only my view but my anxiety that Bills that were the result of the work of committees should be placed before Parliament. The last thing I ever wanted to suggest was that Parliament should not give them a very critical
  326
  examination. I am sure the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the trouble which he took in regard to this Bill and in examining every part of it. I rise merely to say that I am glad that he is not persisting in his Amendment, because I am anxious that these reforms in the law should come into operation.
  There was only one point which I think was one of substance but which we did not discuss, or at any rate not very fully, in the debate before your Lordships. I think my noble friend Lord Merthyr mentioned the figure in Switzerland as being approximately £83, but the point there is not only that this figure of £100 would bring our law into line with that of most Continental countries and so secure uniformity on this subject, but that the question of uniformity on subjects of this kind is being considered by a committee of the Council of Europe at the present moment. It is a relevant point that this is a matter upon which fifteen countries in Europe are trying to find uniformity. I am sorry that I had not that information when the matter was being discussed before. I think that that may be another reason for Lord Silkin's not only taking the generous course which he has taken to-day, but being satisfied in having taken it. After what he has said, I hope that your Lordships will agree with the Motion of my noble friend Lord Derwent.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  LORDS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 3, insert the following new Schedule—

  SCHEDULE NOTICE
  LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO GUESTS' PROPERTY
  Under the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956, an hotel proprietor may in certain circumstances be liable to make good any loss of or damage to a guest's property even though it was not due to any fault of the proprietor or staff of the hotel.
  This liability however—

  (a) extends only to the property of guests who have engaged sleeping accommodation at the hotel;

  (b) is limited to £50 for any one article and a total of £200 in the case of any one guest except in the case of property which has been deposited, or offered for deposit, for safe custody;

  (c) does riot cover motor-cars or other vehicles of any kind or any property left in them, or horses or other live animals.

  This notice does not constitute an admission either that the Act applies to this hotel or that liability thereunder attaches to the proprietor of this hotel in any particular case.")
  The Commons agreed to the above Amendment, but proposed the following consequential Amendment thereto:—
  In paragraph(b)leave out("200")and insert("100").
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the consequential Amendment made by the Commons.
  Moved, That the House doth agree with the consequential Amendment made by the Commons.—(Lord Derwent.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  BRITISH CARIBBEAN FEDERATION BILL
  4.23 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  GOVERNORS' PENSIONS BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  COAL IN0044USTRY BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL
  4.26 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, in accordance with our custom I propose to move the Third Reading of this Bill formally; then we can take the Amendments, and make such remarks as we have to make on the general principle of the Bill on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I hope that course is agreeable to your
  328
  Lordships, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I asked the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, at what stage of the proceedings he proposes to answer the question I put to him upon the Report stage in connection with his Amendment to Clause 7. The House will recollect that the noble Lord wished to amend Clause 7, as he then said, so as to make it abundantly clear that the distribution of home-produced products by the Iron and Steel Board was not outside the scope of this Bill. I rather challenged that, on the wording of the Amendment which the noble Lord put down, and he said that he would take it back and look at it. May I ask him when he proposes to give the House the result of his deliberations—now or at some future stage?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think it will probably be acceptable to the noble Lord if I try to answer that question in the few remarks that I have to offer on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. The noble Lord follows me in debate, by the usual arrangement, and he can make such comments as he thinks fit then.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That will be quite satisfactory to me.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  Clause 8 [Excepted agreements]:
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "for the purpose of resale". The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move Amendment No. 1 perhaps I may apologise to your Lordships for the mere fact that there are any Amendments on the Order Paper at all. The noble Viscount, the late Lord Addison. and our old friend Lord Baddeley, both of whom taught us newcomers back from the war the elementary rules of procedure in your Lordships' House, had an almost pathological horror of Amendments on Third Reading; and certainly I myself agree that they are undesirable. So I apologise. But I can say in mitigation that the Amendments on the Order Paper are all completely non-controversial—they are

  329
  by way of being editorial or procedural, and I think should give your Lordships no trouble, although I make that remark guardedly, because on the last occasion upon which I described an Amendment as being a drafting Amendment, we had a debate lasting forty-one minutes. I have looked at that Amendment again and I still think that it was purely a drafting Amendment. The first Amendment today is concerned with Clause 8, which concerns agreements which are excluded from the Bill, and we feel that the particular limitation to which the Amendment refers in the Bill as it stands is unnecessarily restrictive. This Amendment disposes of it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 7, leave out ("for the purpose of resale").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Cause 24 [Prohibition of agreements for collective enforcement of conditions as to resale prices]:
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, the next four Amendments are connected in one way or another—they are by way of being paving Amendments, looking forward to Amendment No. 8, and they are designed tie up certain references to inter-connected bodies corporate and to individuals carrying on business in partnership. The Amendments at lines 22 and 24 are not actually consequential on the Amendment to Clause 26; they are simply improvements in drafting. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 18, leave out subsection (3)—(Lord Mancroft).
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 2, line out from beginning to ("contract") in line 23 and insert ("A ").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that the noble Lord is right, but it seems to me to be a peculiar thing that on the Third Reading of this Bill, after we have had so much discussion about interconnected bodies corporate,
  330
  the noble Lord should now come and move art Amendment to delete subsection (3)—the very subsection which, on the Committee stage, I myself put down an Amendment to delete. I then heard all the reasons why it should not be deleted. Now the noble Lord has moved to delete it. If the noble Lord's Amendments, Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (I take them together, because they hang together) are agreed to. subsection (4) will read:
  "A contract for the sale of goods to which not more than two persons are party shall not be unlawful under this section by reason only of undertakings by the purchaser in relation to the goods sold and by the vendor in relation to other goods of the same description."
  I believe I have transcribed that correctly. Would the noble Lord tell me in simple language precisely what that means?
  LORD MANCROFT: I will try to tell the noble Lord what we are doing here. The Amendments to which he has referred remove subsection (3) of Clause 24 which contains references to interconnected bodies corporate and to partnerships. As the noble Lord will see, they also remove the last part of subsection (4) of Clause 24, which contains a reference to partnerships, although not to interconnected bodies corporate. The reference to interconnected bodies corporate was omitted because it appeared to be unnecessary, but now that the provisions on interconnected bodies corporate and partnerships are to be included in Clause 26 there seems no reason not to apply them generally to the whole of Part II. That is the reason for this particular group of Amendments.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, all I have to say about the last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is that I regard them with great suspicion. This is the 59½th minute of the 60 minutes left for discussion of this Bill, and the general reason given—that you suddenly discover, before the Third Reading. that there was no reason why this particular provision should not apply to the whole of Part II of the Bill—seems to me extraordinary. I still have that rather suspicious frame of mind about the manipulation of the general Report of the Monopolies Commission which Her Majesty's Government have been so

  331
  steadfastly against. Though I still have that great suspicion it is impossible at this short notice to put up any detailed argument. But, frankly, I do not like it.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the only reason why the noble Viscount does not like it is because he does not understand it. As it is very easy to understand I propose to tell him what it is. The clause comes out of the Bill in one place and it goes back in another; it makes not the slightest difference to what is done.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: But that is exactly what the noble Lord said it was not. It was perfectly open to Her Majesty's Government to have made this position clear on the Report stage of the Bill. Unless there is some special arrière pensée in this matter, frankly I do not quite understand it. Apparently the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment and his colleagues have discovered that the Amendment did not apply to Part II of the Bill as a whole and they now propose to make it apply to Part II as a whole. Perhaps we might know exactly why.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very anxious to take the noble Viscount with us because, like all noble Lords, I feel that it is a great pity when these Amendments have to be made on Third Reading and I am sure we shall all do everything we can to avoid that when the next occasion arises. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has pointed out, the real secret is that now that provisions on interconnected bodies corporate and partnerships are included in Clause 26 there seems no reason why they should not apply generally to the whole of Part II. That is the point. I am sorry that we have had to raise even a difficult point of drafting at this stage, but I can assure the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that the Bill will certainly be in no more sinister a state with this Amendment than it was before. With that, I hope that the noble Viscount will allow us to have this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Really—
  SEVERNL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Order!
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: If Her Majesty's Government put Amendments down on Third Reading they must expect them to be properly debated. These are Government Amendments. If the public interest is not to be protected by proper discussion of Amendments put down at the last moment then I do not think Her Majesty's Government are treating the public fairly.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the House has already discussed this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 24, leave out ("by virtue") and insert ("shall not be unlawful under this section by reason").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 26, leave out from ("description") to end of line 29.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Individual enforcement by legal proceedings of conditions as to resale prices]:
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the next two Amendments simply clarify the nature of the remedies open to suppliers under Clause 25 of the Bill. They contain no arrière pensée and hide nothing sinister. I should be pleased to explain them at inordinate length to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, should he wish, but I do not think it is necessary. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("breach") in line 33 and insert ("Without prejudice to any other relief which may be granted in proceedings against any person in respect of a breach or apprehended").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 35, after ("fit") insert ("upon proof that goods sold by the plaintiff have been re-sold by the defendant in breach of any such condition").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Supplementary provisions]:
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  >Page 25, line 45, at end insert—
  ("(2) For the purposes of any provision of this Part of this Act referring to two or more or not more than two persons, two or more persons being inter-connected bodies corporate or individuals carrying on business in partnership with each other shall be treated as a single person.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, strong exception was taken by the Front Bench opposite just now to my speaking more than once on a particular Amendment. Your Lordships cannot stop my speaking on this one. It is a repetition in this particular clause of what is already provided for in another part of Part II of the Bill. and I object strongly to its appearance in Part II at all, for I still have a grave suspicion about what will be the ultimate effect of this particular provision. I have had that suspicion all the way along and I retain it, so I claim the right to say so on the Third Reading Amendment of the Bill.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the courteous way in which he replied to my request for information on the previous clause on which, as I see it, this Amendment is consequential. I feel that it is a very great pity that a note of acrimony should have crept in right at the last gasp. 'The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the point that the reason why my noble friend did not see the matter clearly was because he did not understand it. He is far too courteous to come here and make allegations of that description. I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for having met with courtesy all our interrogation on this Bill, even if some of it has been based on abysmal ignorance, because we are not all clever enough to write textbooks on Acts before they are passed. Some of us have to do the best we can to give lively opposition. which the Government Front Bench, all the way through this Bill, I think, have appreciated.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Provisions relating to export agreements]:
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 34, leave out ("and fourteen") and insert ("fourteen and seventeen").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.40 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I now rise to move that this Bill do now pass and to offer a few valedictory words upon a measure with which I have lived, off and on, for nearly two years, and of which, quite frankly, I am now heartily tired—though I am still convinced that it is a good Bill. I should like at the beginning to join with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in expressing our appreciation to the small band of enthusiasts, from both sides of the House, who have helped the progress of this Bill and taken part in our debates throughout, and who have never flagged throughout the long, sometimes very long, discussions.
  We have certainly improved this Bill and made important Amendments. Some of them, I am sure, wil prove to be of assistance to industry and commerce. They will undoubtedly have helped industrial concerns in preparing their timetables, adjusting their procedure and rearranging their affairs, as many are doing in order to fall into line with the provisions of the Bill. Some of the Amendments have been directed towards the proposed procedure of the Restrictive Practices Court and the conduct of the Registrar. They have, I think, in a large measure simplified the procedure for all concerned. We have not really made any major changes in the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, reproved us gently for not giving: the Opposition more concessions. I am afraid that that was not possible, much though we should have liked to have done so. It was not possible for this reason. Most of the more important points which noble Lords opposite have put forward have been fundamental points, and we have not been able to give way.
  I am certain, however, that the noble Lords themselves cannot complain that the matters they have raised have not been most carefully considered. I do

  335
  not think that I have ever heard important Opposition Amendments so meticulously, so fully and so courteously dealt with as they were dealt with by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack at the end of the Report stage. On the last occasion on which we were dealing with Opposition Amendments, the noble and learned Viscount again pointed out that upon those which related to important matters of principle we naturally could not give way. That also applies to Clause 21. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, is in his place and I should like to express our appreciation to him and to Lord Baillieu and others for withdrawing their difficult and important Amendments to this clause. We know how strongly the noble Lords feel about the onus of proof, but it would have been a matter of great regret to us if this Bill had left the House for another place with Clause 21 amended in a way that was not acceptable to the Government. I am confident that industry will co-operate in operating this Bill. I should like to emphasise again that there is no odour of criminality attaching to restrictive practices.
  Naturally I regret that the Co-operative Movement feel that the Bill does them injury. I have argued this point with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. and have sought to convince him that that is not so. I will not argue it all over again. If I did, I do not think I should have any more success with the noble Viscount. I would repeat, however, that to injure the Co-operative Movement is far from the intention of the Government. The noble Viscount will not be convinced that the provisions of the Bill do not support the accusation he makes. However many times I say that they do not, I feel that there is no hope of convincing, him.
  My Lords, I turn last to the Amendments to Clause 7, particularly to subsection (1), relating to iron and steel. Lord Lucas of Chilworth asked me during the Report stage whether it was to be understood that the exemption given by the Amendments we were then discussing did not cover any distribution of imported products in the home market. I hoped that I had made the position clear in my original remarks, but apparently that was not the case. Let me try to
  336
  state the position again. What I said was that the Amendments concerned the importation and distribution of imported raw materials and products, and that it was not the intention that restrictive agreements about home-produced raw materials and products should be exempted from the Bill. In other words. exclusive dealing agreements about the distribution of products imported as a common service for the steel industry are exempted from the Bill. This is because the provisions of Section 11 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, cover the distribution of imported raw materials, and it is the object of the Amendments which have been made to the present Bill that there should be no conflict with the Act of 1953.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I put a question and have it treated as a question and not as a speech? Do I forfeit my right to speak again by asking a question? If that is the case—as seems to be suggested—how can we deal with a Bill like this in this way? It is an impossibility.
  LORD MANCROFT: With great respect, the noble Lord will have the right to make a speech in the near future and he can then argue his case and can disagree or agree with me as he sees fit. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor is going to wind up the debate.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: And then I shall not have the right to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question?
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: It is absurd, quite absurd.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House and I will do whatever is required of me. I have attempted to answer the noble Lord's question. If he disagrees with me he can say so as plainly and as loudly as he likes. However, we must leave the matter there—Lord Lucas of Chilworth seems to think we are leaving it in an unsatisfactory state: but I do not think so.
  I will now, if I may, refer to the general principles of the Bill, with which few noble Lords have quarrelled. We regard this Bill as an important development in the industrial and commercial legislation of this country. We regard the establishment of a special judicial court to deal with restrictive practices as the right solution. The Monopolies Commission, as

  337
  your Lordships know, has, however, been preserved and will continue, though of course in a more restricted field, the valuable work which it has been doing in the past. We do not claim that this Bill will result in a sudden and dramatic fall in the cost of living. We do believe. however, that only good can come to the economy of the country if restricted practices are limited to those which can be shown to make some positive contribution to the public welfare. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  4.47 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, on such an occasion as this, and in respect of such a controversial Bill, it is always difficult to approach the final stages. There is, however, one thing that is common to these occasions. When I cast my mind back to the manner in which our debates have been conducted from both sides of the House, I must say, speaking on behalf of noble Lords on this side, that although in the view of many of your Lordships we may have been perhaps unnecessarily combative at times, we cannot complain of the manner in which both Lord Mancroft and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack have dealt with us, however much and however violently we may have disagreed with their views. One must acknowledge the courtesy with which they have treated us and received our sometimes quite indignant remarks.
  By saying that, I do not intend for a moment to forfeit the opportunity of saying during this last and final spasm of the Bill how much we disagree with the whole of Part II of the Bill. It would be unfair and wrong if we did not make that clear. Part I of the Bill, if fairly administered, may bring substantial advantages to traders who have in the past been subjected to discriminative collective agreements, and it may bring substantial advantages also to consumers who have suffered thereby. I hope that Part I of the Bill will so turn out that substantial progress may be made in the direction along which all of us who love freedom in these matters have been hoping to move.
  But when we come to Part II of the Bill I really think your Lordships ought
  338
  not to complain if we express ourselves strongly, for we feel that, instead of relieving the public from the bad effects of discriminatory and restrictive practices. as could have been done if the Government had adopted the Majority Report of the Monopolies Commission, the Government are, in fact, instituting a new statutory power to those engaged in restrictive practices as to the final conditions of sale to go to the High Court for special action by way of enforcement. Having regard to the sixty or seventy years of continuous agitation, in which millions of members of industrial and provident societies have engaged, quite apart from other sections of traders in this country, I must say that that is a most disappointing result from the Government after the Majority Report of the Monopolies Commission.
  Possibly it has been a fault of mine. in dealing with this Bill, that I have been guided in the main by my own lifelong experience of a movement associated with industrial and provident societies. Naturally, that is so. But do not let your Lordships be under any doubt about the fact that all kinds of other associations are worried about the provisions of Part II. Look at the representations we have had from such organisations as the people dealing with motor accessories, who have been highly concerned about the tendency to compel certain garage owners to sell a certain type of petrol if they are to be able to sell certain types of accessories. Perhaps some of these practices may be caught under Part I of the Bill, if they can be shown to be collective agreements for enforcement, but it may well be that under the provisions of Part II such practices will still continue. Therefore, whilst I welcome the fact that Part I of the Bill may save those people with whom I have had an interest all my life from some of the effects of collective price resale agreements, nevertheless I am disappointed in Part II of the Bill.
  I do not propose to argue the details I have argued before, but I should like to say to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we have gained something from the discussions in this House. I have read carefully the Reports of the statements made by Ministers during discussions in another place, but the actual legal position which might

  339
  be fairly forecast in matters which will arise, especially out of Part I of the Bill and, in some cases, indirectly under Part II, have been made much clearer in your Lordships' House by the opinions—and that is all they can be in the circumstances—expressed by the noble Lords. It would be churlish not to say here that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has given all the assistance he possibly can in this matter. It might well be that a careful study of the opinions which have been expressed in this House will be of value to those who have now to prepare for dealing with the operation and administration of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, outside.
  I profoundly regret that the Government missed the great opportunity they had of taking the biggest step forward in dealing with these restrictive practices which any Government have ever had and which they would not take by accepting in full the Majority Report of he Monopolies Commission. Perhaps the best thing I can say. in answer to the courtesy of the noble Lords dealing with the matter, is that, although one would not dream of voting in such circumstances against the Third Reading of the Bill, I might have been tempted, but for their very great courtesy, to put down what is called in another place a "reasoned Amendment."
  4.54 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I say one or two sentences before the House passes with this Bill? The noble Viscount suggested that he had been a little too combative. On the whole, I am not against combativeness as a principle. I happen to be one of those who thought that, in his own objection to the Bill, his combativeness was inspired by misunderstanding of what the Bill really did and how it did it. I think it is too late to remove all those misunderstandings, but perhaps I may be allowed to say this. Of course, I can understand the complaint of noble Lords opposite that the Government ought to have been persuaded by the policy of the Majority Report of the Monopolies Commission to institute a general prohibition backed by administrative machinery. That is a great question of principle about which I think the Parties of this country differ. But when we have said that and admitted that there is a difference between the two Parties on the point,
  340
  I think it is wholly illegitimate to try to mutilate this Bill, which pursues a totally different line of policy, or denigrate this Bill, because it is not mutilated by the introduction of inappropriate bits of imaginary remedies for its major decision of policy.
  The noble Viscount attacks Part II of the Bill. He says that he disagrees with the whole of it. Frankly, I do not think he can disagree with the whole of Part II, if he will only look at Clause 24. If he does disagree with the whole of Part II, he has in fact gone on record as saying that he wants the continuance of trade courts, stock lists and other forms of collective resale price maintenance which are prevented by Clause 24. I know that he really believes the opposite, but he has been violent in some of his criticism and has said a great deal more than he really intends. What he really intends to say, I feel certain, is that he is against Clause 25 because he thinks that it will hurt the co-operatives. I believe that he is quite mistaken about that. It so happens that Clause 25 will hardly touch the co-operatives.
  The position is that before the Bill was passed a supplier of goods was entitled, as between himself and his customer, to insist on a clause as regards the sale price. The co-operatives, neither less nor more than other customers, are bound to keep their contracts. Clause 25 does not interfere with that, either for better or for worse. It says only that if you buy from somebody else and thus become in possession of goods with a notice of somebody else's contract, you must not do that rather doubtful thing—namely, something in breach of the original contract with notice of it. It puts the third party in the same position as the purchaser of a branded article, neither more nor less. I do not believe there are many cases where the co-operatives are affected by individual price resale contracts to which they are not themselves parties. I am convinced that there is a very small minority of cases indeed where the cooperatives are touched at all by the Bill. I would not he surprised at all if there is none.
  Having said that, I feel that a great deal of the combativeness which has been engendered on this Bill has been misguided. Whatever view one takes of the major principle underlying the Bill, it would be inappropriate, having established Part I, which provides for a

  341
  Restrictive Practices Court, to insert in Part II, which is confined to resale price maintenance, a general fiery denunciation of discriminatory practices which renders the Court unnecessary and undesirable. It would make nonsense of what is otherwise a valuable piece of legislation.
  For my part, I should like to say, both to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has taken such an active part in these debates, that I should be the first to recognise the great public service they do by keeping what they describe as a live opposition to measures in this House. I feel that they perform a great and indispensable public service in that way. But they will forgive me for saying that, when a live opposition takes place, it is some measure of the success of its aliveness that it provokes a certain amount of retaliation from the supporters of the Government.
  5.1 p.m.
  LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I should not have arisen but for the remarks which my noble friend, Lord Mancroft, addressed to my noble friends and me for our efforts in regard to Clause 21 of the Bill. I should like to place on record our real appreciation of the courtesy and sympathy with which our efforts have been handled by the noble Lord and by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I would repeat, if I may, what I ventured to say on Second Reading. I regret that we have not been able to persuade the Government to alter Clause 21 as we should have wished. Nevertheless, I have little doubt that those engaged in industry will do their utmost to help in the working out of the measures. Believe me, my Lords, the efficient working and progress of industry in this country at the present tine is far too important to all of us to allow minor difficulties to stand in the way. We wish the Bill success, and we trust that the Board of Trade will carry out its provisions, novel and sometimes difficult as they are, with consideration for all parties concerned.
  5.3 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I should like to preface my remarks by requesting that "the usual channels" take serious note of the difficulties that we have experienced in this
  342
  House on two Bills, the Road Traffic Bill and the Bill that we are now discussing, by the Opposition being seriously handicapped, through sparseness of numbers, in their struggle to carry on a reasoned argument upon Amendments that have appeared on the Report stage and Third Reading. Because of our sparse numbers we cannot deploy our arguments in the way the Government side of the House and the Government Front Bench can. There are times when we find ourselves with a single spokesman who has to oppose the whole of the argument for the whole of the case, and when the Government put down long Amendments, major Amendments, Amendments of principle, and even whole clauses on the Report stage and Third Reading of Bills, it does make it impossible to carry on reasoned debate, which I feel the Government Front Bench always desire, and at the same time keep within the Rules of Order. I may have been a hardened sinner in that, but I have always been treated with courtesy and understanding by the Government Front Bench over it. No one wants to breach the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, and perhaps "the usual channels", during this long holiday which I hope will soon break upon us, will give that matter consideration.
  I should now like to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack a question that I was going to ask of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I have not the slightest doubt that, intricate and obscure though the point is to me, the noble and learned Viscount will give me an answer that will satisfy me, so that I shall not have to break any more rules. I understood the noble Lord, Lord 1Vlancroft, to say that Clause 7 (1), "Restrictions to be disregarded", safeguards the position that the distribution of imported raw materials and products in the United Kingdom does not come outside the scope of this Bill. This is what Clause 7 (1) says:
  "in determining whether an agreement to which iron and steel producers as defined by the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, are part y, whether with or without other parties, is an agreement to which this part of this Act applies, no account shall be taken of any term whether expressed or implied which has been approved by the Iron and Steel Board and by the Board of Trade—
  (a) by which those producers agree to acquire raw materials or other iron and steel

  343
  products as so defined exclusively from a person who undertakes as a common service for the iron and steel industry the importation of those materials or products, or the distribution of those materials or products when imported, or from any person nominated by such a person;"
  I read that to mean that no imported steel product need come within the scope of this Bill —and therefore that its distribution in this country can be subjected to restrictive practices, because it is outside the scope of this Bill—if the Iron and Steel Board and the President of the Board of Trade approve an agreement. If the agreement has to be made, why should those words be in?—because it would !hen come under the Act and have to be a registered agreement. That is what I do not understand. I expect that it is my fault, and that I am completely dense, but I confess that I did not want the Bill to go until I understood it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in opening his contribution to this Third Reading debate, said that he regretted very much that he could not give the Opposition more than he did. I have searched my brains to try to recollect whether at any stage of the Bill he has given us anything at all. I believe that on this major Bill, affecting the whole of the industrial life of this country, both the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the Noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, have been completely stone deaf to anything we have had to say in an endeavour to get them to alter anything contained in this Bill. I think that is a remarkable achievement. I was almost going to say that I should think that if the English cricket team ever wanted two opening "stone-wallers" to defy the attack of anybody, they could not do better than choose the Lord Chancellor and Lord Mancroft: they have certainly "stone-walled" through this Bill with great skill.
  I am not going to fight all the battles over again. Our principal disagreement with this Bill, as my noble Leader has said, really centres on Clause 25. That is where the Government have departed from the advice of the Monopolies Commission. Up to and including Clause 24, the proposals of the Government were more or less based upon the recommendations—some of the Majority; some of the Minority—of the Monopolies Commission. The only real blessing or
  344
  commendation which the noble and learned Viscount could give to Clause 25 was during the Report stage (he will agree with what I am saying) when he said, "It is a small thing, but mine own". Usually, that would commend it to me. But where the Government had "cold feet" at the last moment, and where they ruined all or the majority of the good work they had done right up to Clause 24, was when they did not outlaw resale price maintenance of any kind and make it unlawful to take sanctions against anybody who sold below an advertised price. I listen studiously to every Government pronouncement from the Government Front Bench on any subject, and never one day passes in your Lordships' House when one Government spokesman does not contradict Government policy in this Bill. Even to-day, the noble Earl the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in reply to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, said—I wrote down the words—that this Government were steadfastly opposed to a closed economy. Could there be a better example of a closed economy than giving, not the Government but individual producers in this country. the right to make a distribution system as rigid and as closed as they desire?
  We have heard a lot about "setting the people free": setting some people free to do things in the future that—I will hazard a guess, here and now—will so revolt the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that amending legislation will have to be brought into this Bill before many years have passed. What has happened already? Organisations are being formed to-day. Private Gestapos and clever lawyers are now devising ways and means by which collective price maintenance can be carried on by driving holes in this Bill. I said on a previous stage of this Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, took exception to it, although I do not think he was being serious—that in my view this Bill creates a lawyers' paradise. I think the briefs will come rolling in to the chambers of lawyers who practise in this branch of the law which I believe, in my ignorance, is the Chancery Division.
  Only yesterday I was invited to pass an opinion upon a serious proposition as to whether it would be permissible under this Bill for an organisation to be set up on the basis of a Gestapo, to go round finding out who was cutting the

  345
  prices of manufacturers who had individual price maintenance agreements. so that they could go to the manufacturers and do the job that some of these price maintenance systems and private courts were carrying on before. My reply was to use the words the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack used on Tuesday, which encouraged me to believe that now Clause 24 is to come into operation, Clause 25 may stand a chance of working in this way. I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has read Tuesday's OFFICIAL REPORT. I will not ask him to make a pronouncement upon it now, because that would be unfair. But the noble Viscount is, if I may say so without offence, an expert on this Bill.
  What does the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack say? I am freely interpreting what he said, but I do not think I shall exaggerate. He said that no price maintenance agreement that had not equity would hold water in a court of law under Clause 25 of this Bill. In other words, no producer of an article can take to court somebody who has breached the agreement to maintain those prices unless the producer has himself in equity entered into the same agreement that he will not do the same thing. That will be a novel thing in price maintenance agreements in this country in the future. I feel that all our battles upon Part II of this Bill have been worth while in getting that pronouncement from such a high authority as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.
  I do not think I have any more to say. So far as this House is concerned this Bill has had a real investigation, and I wish it well. If it is not unseemly for me to do so, I should like to congratulate the officials, both male and female, of the Board of Trade for the work they must have put. into this Bill before it got as far as being debated in Parliament. Perhaps they have slipped up in some places. I think they have slipped up by putting into Clause 25 the power to control the second-hand markets of the country. But still, that always comes from poking one's nose into something that one knows nothing about; and even Government Departments make that mistake now and again. However, perhaps experience will teach them. With my noble Leader I would once again thank the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for
  346
  his unfailing courtesy, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his share. As I said at the opening of my remarks, I hope that the usual channels will try to lighten our burden a little in the future. If they can do that I believe it will make for more harmonious working in your Lordships' House.
  5,19 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I address your Lordships yet again on this Bill, as your Lordships must be getting extremely fatigued, if not tired, at the many interventions I have made. But I should like to say, first, most sincerely—this is not a mere figure of speech, and I think everyone in this House will understand—how grateful we are to the noble Lords who have taken so active a part in this Bill from the Front Opposition Bench. I should like to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that I am the last person in the world to object when he gets combative or even militant. I do not believe you can conduct anything about which you feel strongly at half cock, and I should like to tell him that, so far as I am concerned, there are no sore feelings left from anything he has said. With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I think he has won the admiration of us all by the really hard work he has put in on this Bill. He has put down useful Amendments and spoken on them so clearly in the House. It is a great service to your Lordships' House, and I hope he will not mind a speaker in your Lordships' House saying that of him on this occasion.
  With regard to the general criticism of the Bill, I want only to say this, and I want to say it shortly and arithmetically. If your Lordships will take up the Bill as it is now and consider the speeches that have been made, I think your Lordships will see that Clauses 1 to 23 have received the general blessing of the House. Clause 24 as it is now (because the numbers have been changed) is the clause which prohibits agreements for collective enforcement of conditions as to resale prices. That has received the universal blessing of the House. If one turns for a moment to Parts and IV, one finds they certainly have not received any serious criticism. At this stage of the Bill, to be able to say that

  347
  the real criticism and the feeling is centred on one Clause, No. 25—the individual enforcement by legal proceedings of conditions as to resale prices—is a remarkable achievement for a Bill on a controversial subject. I am glad of that fact.
  I shall not go through again the arguments that we have had on Clause 25. I want only to say that collective price maintenance is prohibited under Clause 24. No doubt, people will try to drive a coach and horses through it, but it contains a firm and strong prohibition. It is not so easy when you get a firm and strong prohibition to turn something into an effective piece of machinery which in the end cannot be destroyed. We shall watch it as stringently as the noble Viscount will, and, if we find defects, we shall be glad to reconsider the position. We stand firmly by that prohibition of collective price maintenance and we want no shilly-shallying in its application. But with regard to Clause 25, no one who believes in price maintenance would ever suggest for a moment that individual price maintenance is as easy or effective as collective price maintenance. You are dealing with something much more difficult and you are dealing with it, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, from this point of view: that the only people against whom action can be taken under Clause 25, against whom action could not be taken without Clause 25, are people who know of the conditions imposed at an earlier stage and decide not to keep them.
  I re-state that only because that is the essential basis of the matter; that they know the conditions are there and they decide that they will not keep them. Without Clause 25 it would always be possible to enforce any contractual basis for individual price maintenance, and I am inclined to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that it is difficult to see where the many instances which are expressed in the fears of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will come.
  I have dealt frequently with this point. I want to try to deal with it now very shortly and pass to another point. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had asked me to try to clarify again the object of what I may call the iron and steel
  348
  provisions. May I put it this way? Arrangements for the exclusive buying and selling of imported raw materials and steel products and their distribution as common services for the steel industry—those are the important words: as common services for the steel industry—are exempted from the Bill because under the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, they are under the control of the Steel Board; and if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will have another look—I know it is not a very easy matter—at Section 11, and also at Section 10, of the Iron and Steel Act of 1953, he will see the point that I am making.
  The exclusions from the Bill are, of course, limited to those that are the results of the common services under the Act, and the inclusion of distribution in the clause now in front of your Lordships is due simply to the fact that the agency which buys the imports may, as a matter of convenience, arrange for their distribution to purchasers. But the noble Lord will see that it is limited to the imported goods. My noble friend Lord Mancroft was entirely right when he said that it was not the intention or the effect of the Bill that restrictive agreements about home produced raw materials and products should be exempted from the Bill. It is the point I ventured to put earlier on. The general plan of our dealing with iron and steel is under the Act of 1953. There, the industry is broadly under the control of the Iron and Steel Board and we cannot, by this Bill, though we are dealing with another and important part of the industrial field, alter or worsen the position under the Iron and Steel Act. This part of the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has rightly directed our attention is dealing with the common services which are the result of the earlier Act.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What is a common service?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is buying on behalf of industry as a whole.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is it only for users or is it also for makers?
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Steel producers or steel users?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not got the point.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Distribution of imported steel joists can be restricted unless it is given as a common service to the steel industry?
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, the other way round.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What does it mean? Does that mean to the fabricators of steel or to the users of steel? Whereas the home produced steel joist must be free of any price ring control.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am most anxious not to say anything wrong through not appreciating fully the technical terms, but broadly the steel industry in this country, as I understand it, imports certain materials and products. Through the operation of the Steel Board—this is what is set out in the Iron and Steel Act—it is possible for them to have common service agreements to buy, so long as they are under the Steel Board and approved or subject to the action of the President of the Board of Trade under Section 11. It may be that from what is bought—whether it be the raw materials or products which are then used in the industry —there may be certain sale agreements of the things bought by the common service. That is the limit of the exclusion; beyond that it is all right.
  My Lords, I hope that I have been of some help. I want to make only three general points. The first is in answer to what my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton was good enough to say. I am most grateful to him, and I hope that he will convey my personal thanks to my noble friend Lord Baillieu for not pressing the Amendment which he mentioned in his speech. I put it this way to the noble Lord. One of the most difficult problems of modern government is something which we are all apt to talk about with great facility and ease in our speeches—the noble Lord and I have said it more than once—that it is the function of the State, so far as industry is concerned, to create the conditions under which industry can function with prosperity and success. That is broadly, I think, what he and I have always said was the function of the State. If we accept that, it means that what the State does must not only he done in fact in order to create prosperity and success. but be understood by the majority of interested people as doing that; and, after the
  350
  gravest consideration of the final form of the Amendment, I felt strongly that it would have been misunderstood by the people who had up to that time appreciated our primary point—namely, of encouraging competition and getting rid of restrictive practices.
  It was for that reason that I could not, compatibly with my conception of what a Government ought to do, accept the Amendment. I want my noble friends to appreciate that that was the reason, and that it was not either because I was being difficult with them or because I imputed to them any motives which they had not got—nothing would have been further from my mind. I state again my reason. I have said that I hope, as my noble friend Lord McCorgnodale of Newton said so clearly to-day, that industry which, through my noble friends, has already in this House blessed the principle of this Bill, will now apply that principle to the general benefit of the country. I am sure it will.
  The other point is a more selfish one, which I have indicated and I ask your Lordships' patience in mentioning it once again. I have the honour to be the transient and embarrassed temporary head of the legal profession in this country. I am aware that my position is transient and temporary, but I am none the less proud of it, as I am sure everyone has been who has held it. I believe that the law, although deeply rooted in the history of the institutions of our country, is not an heirloom which is to be taken down, dusted, reverently considered and placed hack. I believe that the law is as effective a -dynamic force in modern problems as it is soundly based on these historical roots. Therefore, I believe that the law should be brought in to help in the solution of the great problems of a modern State. This is one of the great problems, and therefore the solution which I advance to your Lordships is one which provides for those affected the best machinery for arriving at the truth and reaching justice which the world has so far devised. It is because of that, because I believe that this is not only beneficial and effective in dealing with the problem, bin is an example of the dynamic use of the law. that I am glad to see the Bill reach this stage, arid I ask your Lordships now to pass it.
  On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

  MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  5.38 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be read a third time, I want first of all to ask a question of the noble Lord who has dealt with the Bill on behalf of the Government. But before I do that, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking all those who have been responsible for the Bill right from its inception. My honourable friend in another place was very fortunate, I consider, to have the idea of promoting a Bill of this kind. He was fortunate also in getting support from all sections in another place; and that fortune continued when it came to dealing with the Bill further, because there was real support and help from the Ministers in the Scottish Office. When the Bill came here, the same kind of atmosphere prevailed, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was most helpful. Now we have reached the present stage where the Bill is certain of passing into law.
  This is an important Bill. Its provisions, as they will apply to those who take advantage of them, are most important. The question I want to put to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde is this. Can he say what steps will be taken by the Government or by other agencies to make the terms of this Bill and the new and favourable concessions that it embodies known throughout the country? I put it in that simple way. I think there is a need to give great publicity to what is provided in this Bill, and I ask the noble Lord whether he can give us information on that particular point.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Mothers.)
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I should first of all like to express my thanks to the noble Lord for the gracious remarks which he made about my colleagues at the Scottish Office. I hope that what I have to say will give him some reassurance as to the publicity which will be given to this matter. The Registrar General intends to send out immediately to all registrars concerned a circular explaining this new measure and instructing them how to operate it. The Church of Scotland will also be notified about its enactment, so that they may take such steps as they consider
  352
  appropriate. In addition, the proceedings of the Bill have received a good deal of attention in the Scottish Press, and in that way its contents must have become fairly well known over a fairly wide area. Moreover, I have no doubt that the noble Lord's observations to-day will further draw attention to the beneficent provisions of the Bill. I hope that in some way that will reassure the noble Lord that the matter is receiving attention and that wide publicity will be given.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for what I consider to be an adequate answer.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I should first like to reply to the remarks which the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, directed at me a few minutes ago. I am sorry to see that he is not in his place. I think the short answer to the query which he has raised is that we shall re-commit Bills, where they are thought to be contentious, wherever possible and whenever we have time. I do not think there is any argument about that. But I feel that there can be no doubt that when we are as pressed, as we have been, it is rather difficult to find time to do so.
  I have to inform your Lordships that we hope to adjourn for the Summer Recess next Thursday until Tuesday, 23rd October. At the same time I would inform your Lordships that we shall meet next Thursday at 12 o'clock noon, when it is expected that we shall have a Royal Commission.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask whether there is any Business other than the Royal Commission next Thursday?
  EARL FORTESCUE: The answer is, No.

  MEDICAL BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with an Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at seventeen minutes before six o'clock.