Lords Sitting of 16 December 1959

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle

VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN
The Right Honourable James Gray Stuart, C.H., M.V.O., M.C., having been created Viscount Stuart of Findhorn, of Findhorn in the County of Moray—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

SERVICE ACCOMMODATION IN ADEN COMMAND
2.47 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now make a statement on barrack and married family accommodation of personnel in the Aden Command and give an assurance that married families have now been removed from sub-standard hirings; whether they can give the rank and position of officers recently sent to investigate accommodation conditions in Aden by the Air Ministry and will state whether their report will be made available to Members of Parliament.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as I explained to your Lordships last week, an extensive building programme of permanent domestic accommodation for both single and married men is already in hand at Aden. The effect of this programme will begin to be felt next summer, and the situation will improve very substantially over the next eighteen months. Meanwhile, it is true that operational requirements have forced upon us some overcrowding and lowering of standards. Immediate steps are being taken therefore to raise the minimum standard of family accommodation. If necessary, some men nearing the end of their tours will be posted home early to
426
make room in acceptable accommodation for families now living below the new standard.
To reduce pressure on married accommodation until new quarters and hirings are available, the possibility is being urgently considered of offering more frequent air passages home to officers and airmen whose families remain in the United Kingdom. As regards single accommodation, prefabricated huts are being sent out to relieve the immediate overcrowding. The first huts should arrive in Aden next month.
The recent inspection of married accommodation, to which the noble Lord refers, was carried out by a Wing Commander, accompanied by a civil servant from the Department of the Air Member for Personnel. Their report was written for internal use within the Air Ministry, and I am afraid it would be contrary to normal practice to make it available to your Lordships. Your Lordships may be aware, however, that my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air proposes to pay a personal visit of inspection to Aden soon after Christmas. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for War will also visit Aden next month on his way to East Africa.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, first of all, may I thank the noble Earl for his Answer? I am sure he will appreciate the purpose of my Question, which was to give him an opportunity of giving some satisfactory news to your Lordships' House following our debate last week. May I say how pleased I am that the Under-Secretary of State, and eventually the Minister himself, will be going to Aden? I am sure that the country will be very pleased about this. The noble Earl mentioned a new standard. May I ask whether this standard is below or equal to the standard that previously governed family accommodation?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, it will certainly not be below, and I sincerely hope that it will be above, as and when the accommodation can be provided.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's reply, may I ask two questions? First, do the Government accept some responsibility for the conditions in private accommodation, in that that

427
has to be approved for security and medical standards? Secondly, while this acute shortage of accommodation persists, is the policy of unlimited calling forward of wives of serving airmen to remain in force, or will there be some check on the number going out?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the question of families going into private rented properties is a difficult one, because heavy pressure is built up by the number of families wanting to go out there. My information is that many wives have preferred to join their husbands, even in very poor accommodation, rather than remain at home. That has been the difficulty. I think your Lordships will in all fairness see that, as there was not enough good accommodation available, the only alternative would have been to send them home; and, as I say, I understand that the wives prefer to stay where they are, in bad accommodation until better accommodation is provided, rather than be parted from their husbands. I have even heard of one or two families in very bad accommodation who have said they would go through it all again rather than be separated.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, that is not an answer to my question. Is the policy still in force that allows unlimited calling forward of wives, or will there be any check on it until the emergency accommodation is obtained?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this is the situation. When a man goes to Aden, he may not at first bring his family out with him. He searches for private accommodation, because there is no official accommodation available; and if that is approved by the authorities out there, then he brings his family out. It is for him to call his family forward if he finds accommodation and gets it approved. The standards required for approval are now being raised. The noble Lord might like to know, in regard to the particular hotel which has been mentioned, that as soon as it is empty of Service families it will not be approved again.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, arising out of the statement on the question of prefabricated huts, are we to take
428
it that it is the policy of the Government now to provide small-scale alleviation against long-term investment? Then I would ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that there is a lack of co-ordination between the Air Ministry and the R.A.F. Engineering Department responsible with regard to conflicting information received concerning the supply of necessary materials for buildings and so forth. I should also like to ask whether the noble Earl would stress with his right honourable friend the necessity for the Director General of Organisation to look into this matter when he is out there next month.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the sending out of huts and the like does not mean any interference with long-term plans. I think we have agreed on all sides that the accommodation situation in Aden is bad, and the sensible thing is to take what interim steps we can until our main buildings are ready. I am sure we all realise that partly because of the difficulty of finding suitable building land, the provision of permanent accommodation is bound to take time. It is, I think, sensible to do what is possible to ameliorate the situation in the short term while we wait for the permanent buildings to be completed.

USE OF POISONS IN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STORAGE
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave 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 will state the names and occupations of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage, and what steps the Committee takes to ensure that toxic crop sprays cleared under the Notification Scheme destroy only insects which are prejudicial to crops.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, with permission, I will circulate the names of the members of the Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This is an Interdepartmental Committee consisting of

429
Civil Service administrators and scientists. It is assisted by a Scientific Sub-Committee. My right honourable friend is at present considering the appointment of an independent chairman. As announced by my honourable friend in another place on 20th November, it has been decided to widen the membership of the Committee by including eminent scientists outside the Government service in the fields of agriculture, medicine, chemistry and nature conservancy. The following have accepted invitations to serve on the Committee:
Professor J. H. Gaddum, Director of the Institute of Animal Physiology, Cambridge, late Professor of Materia Medica, Edinburgh University;
Professor Andrew Wilson, Professor of Pharmacology, Liverpool University;
Dr. J. Hamence, Public Analyst and Agricultural Analyst;
Mr. F. H. Garner, Principal of the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester;
Professor A. R. Clapham, Professor of Botany, Sheffield University.
In answer to the second part of the Question, it is not possible to ensure in all cases that only harmful insects are destroyed by chemical sprays. The Advisory Committee, however, makes recommendations on such matters as the timing of application, so that beneficial insects are affected as little as possible.
Following are the names of the members of the Advisory Committee:
Dr. H. R. Barnell, M.A., Ph.D., B.Sc., M.I.Biol., (Scientific Adviser, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food);
Mr. M. Compton (Food Standards and Hygiene Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food);
Mr. W. C. Moore, C.B.E., M.A. (Plant Pathology Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food);
Mr. R. J. E. Taylor (Labour, Machinery and Seeds Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food);
Mr. A. L. Burgess (Board of Trade);
Dr. J. M. Ross, M.D., D.P.H. (Ministry of Health);
Mr. R. F. Tyas (Ministry of Health);
Mr. W. G. Alexander, C.B.E. (Agricultural Research Council);
Mr. C. O. Harvey. B.Sc., A.R.C.S.. F.R.I.C. Laboratory of the Government Chemist, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research);
Dr. J. M. Faulkner, M.B., D.P.H. (Medical Research Council);
Mr. R. E. Boote, B.Sc. (Econ.) (The Nature Conservancy);
Dr. J. M. Johnston, C.B.E., M.D. F.R.C.S. (Ed.), F.R.C.P. (Ed.), F.R.S.E. (Department of Health for Scotland);
Mr. A. MacLehose (Department of Health for Scotland);
Mr. R. C. Tucker (Department of Agriculture for Scotland).
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Can he say when this Committee will begin its deliberations? As regards the second part of my Question, are we to take it that no assurance can be given that these toxic sprays will not destroy only the things they are supposed to destroy but will destroy other things as well, meaning that all-obliterating sprays will go on? Will the noble Earl not do something to prevent that from happening?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Viscount that this Committee and its scientific sub-committee have been in existence for a long time; it is not a question of when it will start its deliberations. But as I was trying to explain, the Committee is being widened and its membership being added to. As to the second part of the Question, it is impossible, from the nature of the case, to ensure that insects which it is not desired to kill do not get killed, but one of the main purposes of this Committee is to give advice to manufacturers, farmers and others using these sprays as to how these risks can be minimised.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, will the Committee give attention also to the many other sources from which the human body may be affected by toxic chemicals of a similar character, or of a character which reinforces the effects of the chemicals in these sprays?
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that widespread concern persists at the continued use of these toxic chemicals in agriculture, not only among the general public and the animal welfare societies but also among biologists, who are apprehensive of the ultimate effect on the fauna and flora of the countryside and the consequent risk of upsetting generally the balance of nature?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, perhaps I may first answer the noble Lord sitting behind me. Of course we

431
are aware of the dangers of these chemicals, but we must keep a sense of proportion. It is not possible to play entirely for"Safety first." The purpose of my right honourable friend in setting up this powerful Committee is that these risks should be minimised. I do not think we can take the line that because agricultural chemicals have potential dangers they must all be banned, lock, stock and barrel.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are quite a number of enlightened agriculturists who have no recourse to these sprays at all?

BRITISH PRE-WAR CLAIMS AGAINST JAPAN
2.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave 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 can state the nature of the difficulties that have delayed the negotiations relative to the pre-war claims of British nationals against Japan, and whether those claims are any nearer settlement.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the main difficulty has been over the terms of the discharge required by the Japanese Government. Her Majesty's Government share the disappointment of the noble Viscount at the slow rate of progress in these negotiations. I can assure your Lordships, however, that we shall go on pressing for a solution.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Marquess for his Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that these claims were filed in 1946? And is he further aware that the dilatory attitude of the Japanese Government to this matter, and the protracted negotiations, will not produce the goodwill on the part of this country towards Japan that the Japanese want?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes, my Lords.

LONDON AIRPORT ROAD TRAFFIC
3.1 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether anything can be done to improve the road intersection from West Drayton to London Airport, North Side, by means of a roundabout, in view of the large amount of traffic desiring to enter or leave London Airport.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, this junction is at present being improved by the widening of the carriageways and the replacement of the staggered lay-out by a simple crossroads. The traffic lights will be retained. This improvement should greatly increase the traffic capacity of the junction, and should be more effective at this point than a roundabout. The airport authorities have also constructed a small roundabout inside the airport to assist traffic flow.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that at least one of the principal traffic authorities in the area is strongly in favour of a roundabout, as against a light-controlled crossing, owing to the reduction in possible danger to individuals using the airport?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think I could agree with the noble Earl on that point. I do not know whether he is aware of the present proposal for improvement, which includes moving the existing entrance to London Airport, North, a little way westwards, until it is opposite the road leading from West Drayton. It is all part of the construction of dual-carriageways between that point and the point known as Henly's Corner, and I think will be perfectly adequate for the traffic calculated at the present time.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, has the noble Lord been correctly informed? The road from West Drayton comes in exactly opposite the entrance to the airport: it is a direct, right-angular road

433
intersection. It may well be that the noble Lord's solution will be better, but I think something ought to be done to improve it.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not know whether I should admit to being misinformed on this matter, but the actual lay-out of the cross-roads is a staggered one, as I shall be pleased to show the noble Earl, with the maps and plans which I have before me, if he will be so kind as to meet me afterwards. This, in any case, is not the ultimate answer, whether it be a roundabout or anything else. The real solution in the longer term is that as traffic moves from London Airport, North, to London Airport, Central, as it will be doing, it should go by the proposed underpass right under the Bath Road coming up on to the East-bound carriageway.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord.

THE WHITE PAPER ON DEFENCE
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice, in order to help the information of the House. It is: To ask whether Her Majesty's Government can tell the House the approximate date when it may expect publication of the usual White Paper on Defence.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I understand that nothing has been settled on the point—that no date has been settled—but I have no reason to suppose that we shall depart from the usual practice, which would be to issue the Paper towards the end of February or beginning of March.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, that is helpful. I was anxious to know, for our preparations and studies, whether the international conversations which are going on are likely to affect the preparation of this document. There have been rumours here and there, but I may take it, I gather, that we shall have a White Paper on Defence, and at the approximate date suggested.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I said, nothing has been settled. I do not know whether we can settle the exact date yet, but it will be round about that time.

MR. BUTLER AND EIRE
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who sends his apologies for not being here, owing to an indisposition, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can make a statement clarifying the speech made at Belfast by the Home Secretary.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Viscount is unable to be here. In so far as my right honourable friend was referring to the possibility of a policy of economic sanctions against the Irish Republic, it is clear that he was answering hypothetical questions from the Press. He made no statement of policy on this subject.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate, with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, certain enactments relating to road traffic. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

POLICE PENSIONS REGULATIONS, 1959
3.6 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved. They are consequential on the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, and deal only with pensions of police widows and the allowances of children of deceased police officers. Pensions of retired police officers themselves are dealt with directly under the Act of 1959. This is the usual way of applying pensions increase measures to the Police Service, and is adopted because of the technical drafting difficulties

435
that would arise if Pensions (Increase) Acts attempted to deal with the police widows.
The Regulations are complicated, but their practical effect is comparatively straightforward. There are two classes of police widows, and hence the Regulations have two objects. First, they ensure that the widows whose pension awards are related in amount to the deceased officer's pay will receive increases equivalent to, and on the same basis as, those provided by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959. This is achieved by saying, in effect, that the awards will be treated as though they had in fact been specified in the Schedule to the Act itself. Secondly, they provide corresponding increases for the flat rate awards payable to widows and children. The majority of police widows at present are in this class. This increase is achieved more simply by substituting new rates for the existing ones. All these Regulations have been subject to consultation with the Police Council for England and Wales, as required by the Police Pensions Act, 1948. They have also, I am glad to say, been welcomed by a deputation from the National Association of Retired Police Officers, who called at the Home Office recently.
The Regulations as drafted have effect from August 1 last, which was the date from which the Pension (Increase) Act, 1959, took effect. It is our hope that it will be possible to bring these Regulations into force before Christmas, so that the payment shall begin as soon as possible after January 1. These Regulations operate the general provisions of the pension increases that were decided in the last Parliament, and as such I beg to commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Police Pensions Regulations, 1959, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1959
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, these Regulations have exactly the same effect as the Regulations which your Lordships' House has just passed, and there is no particular Scottish point. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1959, be approved—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (MAGISTRATES' COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, we begin to-day what we hope will be the final stage of a notable effort to consolidate and bring up to date the substantive law with regard to the jurisdiction and powers of magistrates' courts in matrimonial proceedings. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce recommended that this branch of the law should be codified, and all those concerned with its operation have for some time felt that action was needed. A consolidating Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House in November, 1957, and was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. It was subsequently found, however, that the proper interpretation of some of the provisions that were to be consolidated was obscure, and there was no alternative but to withdraw the Bill.
What was needed, therefore, was not only consolidation but clarification, and the Government thought it right also to take the same opportunity to give attention to certain proposals which had been made for the amendment of the law. On withdrawing the consolidating Bill the Government accordingly decided to set up an expert committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Arthian Davies to advise on the replacement of the existing provisions by a single up-to-date enactment, and at the same time to advise on the best method of including in the new measure certain relevant recommendations of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce presided over by my noble and learn friend, Lord Morton of Henryton.
The Committee reported in January, 1959—and I would ask my noble friend, Lord Silkin, to note that we are still in 1959—and the draft Bill annexed to its Report is substantially, and with certain exceptions, to some of which I shall

437
shortly draw your Lordships' attention, the Bill that I am now commending to the House. I am sure your Lordships would wish me at this stage to pay tribute to Mr. Justice Davies and to his Committee for their thorough and painstaking work, and we are greatly indebted to them especially because we recognise that they were all, in different ways, experienced in matrimonial law and in the work of magistrates' courts. The Committee's Report was generally welcomed by the Press, by the women's organisations and by the professional associations most directly concerned, and the Government feel that the Committee have produced a most useful Bill.
So much for the history of the Bill now before the House. Before I turn to the contents I should first like to say a word or two about the background, because I get few opportunities in this House of paying a tribute to the work of magistrates in this very difficult field. The magistrates, lay and stipendiary—and with them I bracket their clerks and the other court officers who are concerned in the matrimonial functions of the magistrates' courts—perform a most important and socially useful task. I can illustrate the size of it by saying that in 1958 over 24,000 applications were made to magistrates' courts under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts with which we are concerned this afternoon, and nearly 14,000 orders were made; to which we should add a further 5,000 orders under the Guardianship of Infants Acts and nearly 4,000 orders under the Affiliation Proceedings Act.
I would take the opportunity to deal with another point in which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was very interested when we had our previous Bill before the House. He will remember, and those of your Lordships who were interested will remember, that the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, gave to magistrates' courts new and more effective powers by enabling them to attach earnings, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that, while as yet we have no figures of the number of attachment-of-earnings orders made, the striking reduction in the figures of civil prisoners of all kinds—from over 900 early this year to less than 400 last month—clearly suggests that the attachment procedure is being used with good effect. The third background point about which I ought to inform your Lordships
438
is that it is my intention in the next financial year to extend the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, to matrimonial and affiliation proceedings in magistrates' courts and quarter sessions. So no one need fear that his or her case has failed because it was not properly presented to the court.
I will not weary the House with a lengthy exposition of the provisions of the Bill, since many of your Lordships will no doubt have studied the Committee's Report. I cone therefore at once to the principal changes in the present law that the Bill seeks to make. All but one of these are listed in paragraph 6 of the Committee's Report. The first is that the relief available to a husband should be substantially the same as that available to a wife. The second, which is closely related to it, is that the court should have power in certain circumstances to order the wife to pay maintenance for the husband. It is proposed that a court should be able to do this if it is satisfied that the husband's earning capacity is impaired through are, illness or disability of mind or body. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce recognised that there is a small number of cases where a husband is unable to support himself or the family and his wife is in a position to do so. In those cases it seems right that the court should have a discretion to order the wife to pay. It is an interesting full circle. Your Lordships may have noticed that a few months ago I had the pleasure of unveiling a memorial to Dame Christabel Pankhurst, one of the Suffragette leaders. It is only logical and a proper ending of the full circle that in this Bill I should put before your Lordships the recommendation of the Royal Commission that in proper circumstances the wife should maintain her husband.
The third principal change in the law is that the court is given wider powers to make provision in the interests of the children, including power, where exceptional circumstances make it necessary, to commit a child to the care of a local authority, or to place a child under the supervision of a probation officer or a child care officer. These provisions will give to magistrates' courts powers similar to those that were given to the High Court in the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act, 1958.

439
I might say here a word about the classes of children in respect of whom orders may be made, because I think this raises a difficult point on which in due course I shall be grateful for the opinion, advice and help of your Lordships. As the Bill stands, the provision made follows the Davies Committee's view that it should be a ground for complaint if a spouse fails to maintain a child of both parties, whether legitimate or illegitimate. As regards illegitimate children, this is an extension of the present law, and brings magistrates' courts into line with the High Court so far as neglect to maintain is concerned. But the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act, 1958, gave to the High Court wider powers when the court was dealing with proceedings for divorce. In such proceedings, whether the court grants a decree or refuses one, it may make provision for the custody and maintenance of a child of one party only of the marriage, who has been accepted as a member of the family by the other party.
To enlarge the present Bill to enable magistrates' courts to deal with this class of children raises a question of principle, for it involves making it a specific ground for complaint that a spouse has failed to maintain a child whom at present he has no legal liability to maintain, and it would also raise technical and procedural difficulties. That is the argument on one side. On the other hand, there are arguments for saying that a husband, for example, who allows a child of his wife by someone else to come and live with the family undertakes a continuing responsibility towards that child, and that this should be taken into account. As I say, the Government are most willing to consider the matter further and will, as I have said, of course pay regard to anything that is said in the discussion on the Bill.
The fourth change is in regard to certain circumstances in which a matrimonial order ceases to have effect. At present that happens after three months, if husband and wife continue to reside together—I repeat, to reside together. The Bill substitutes the criterion of cohabitation for that of residence in order to avoid the hardship which arises when a wife wishes to leave her husband's home but cannot do so because she cannot find
440
other accommodation, and so is obliged to continue to live separately in the same house. Finally, the Bill gives the court power in certain circumstances to revoke or vary an order for maintenance if the party in whose favour it is made is living abroad. It has long been recognised that hardship can be caused when a spouse in whose favour a matrimonial order has been made goes abroad, and continues to benefit from the order, but deprives the other spouse of the means of bringing proceedings for revocation or variation, because in those circumstances it is impossible to serve a summons.
My Lords, the main change in the law made by the Bill but not mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Davies Committee's Report, is the increases in the maximum weekly maintenance payments that a magistrates' court may order. The Committee drew attention in paragraph 8 of their Report to the need for an increase. The Government accept this, and Clause 2 provides that the maximum weekly amounts shall be raised from £5 to £7 10s. for a spouse, and from £1 10s. to £2 10s. for each child. These increases represent, in our view, a reasonable estimate of the limits within which magistrates' courts should be enabled to work at the present time, in view of the undoubted increases in costs and wages since 1949. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, is here. He will notice that I have covered both the contending views as to cost inflation and wage inflation. Whichever view he takes, I think he will consider that this is a proper step. Corresponding increases are made in the maximum amounts which may be ordered in guardianship and affiliation proceedings.
The other points on which the Bill diverges from the Bill appended to the Davies Committee's Report are not of a fundamental character. I have, however, been asked by my noble friend Lord Merthyr to say a word about subsection (4) of Clause 6, which I gather has caused some concern among our colleagues in the Magistrates' Association. Subsection (1) of that clause provides that if a magistrates' court adjourns the hearing of a complaint for a period exceeding a week, or if they refuse to make an order, on the ground that the matter would be more conveniently dealt with in the High Court, they may make an interim order for a period of up to three months. Subsection

441
(4) provides that no more than one interim order may be made in respect of one complaint.
The Davies Committee thought, and the Government agree, that it is desirable to bring an interim order to an end as soon as possible, and to encourage the court to make a substantive order, for there is no appeal against a maintenance provision in an interim order, and it is unfair to have it extended indefinitely. I understand, however, from my noble friend that some magistrates have expressed the view that the three months' period is not long enough, and that provision should be made for the making of a further interim order. I am most ready to consider this point. I think that my noble friend will agree that the arguments are finely balanced. I should be grateful if, before we come to the Committee stage, either he, or the Magistrates' Association through him, would develop the point, in view of the difficulties I have expressed, and I shall certainly be pleased to consider it further.
My Lords, as you will see, this Bill is of a somewhat technical and complicated nature, as indeed must be the case when one is dealing with the enormous variety of situations that can arise in matrimonial proceedings and where it is so important to provide checks and safeguards for all the parties. It is, however, in the words of the Davies Committee, a convenient, workable and up-to-date system of law relating to matrimonial proceedings in the magistrates' courts. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to give careful and detailed consideration to the Bill in Committee, when the Government will be most grateful for the benefit of the great wealth of judicial, magisterial and other experience which your Lordships possess. This is not a Bill on which there are differing political views. The Government have an open mind on many of the issues, including the two that I have mentioned, and will be very ready to listen to suggestions for improving the Bill.
My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having taken a little time over this matter. I think it is so important that the work of the magistrates should not be allowed simply to go unrecognised except in those few cases in which it comes in for criticism. We appreciate the immense amount of
442
work they are doing, and in this Bill we are trying to help them by improving the law they have to administer, in accordance with the proposals of the Royal Commission presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton. I hope that he, and those of your Lordships who sometimes wonder at the danger of pigeonholing the Reports of Royal Commissions, will feel that we have gradually, but at every opportunity that presents itself, tried to implement their recommendations. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.29 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, your Lordships' House will be grateful to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for the clear and lucid way in which he has explained both the background to this valuable Bill, as I believe it to be, and the various considerations which led the Government to bring it forward. I think they are entitled also to be complimented on the comparatively short delay which has occurred between the laying of the Report of the Commission in January of this year and the introduction of this Bill. I imagine that your Lordships will also, like myself, have been interested to hear from the noble and learned Viscount that he proposes to bring out regulations extending the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, so that its provisions cover this very valuable branch of our law, where I should think possibly it is even more needed than in some other branches to which the provisions of the Act have already been extended. In any event, it is, I should have thought, a most valuable step to take, and we should be grateful to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and to Her Majesty's Government for introducing that extension to the provisions of that Act.
This Bill is the result of what I gather the noble and learned Viscount considers the very valuable consideration given to the draft Bill by the Committee under Mr. Justice Davies. It seems to me a valuable procedure to have a technical Bill such as this gone through by an expert Committee who have special knowledge and can amend, consolidate

443
or dispose, as they think fit, the quite complicated and technical matters with which they have to deal. As a result, the Bill comes before your Lordships and another place having had its teething troubles, so to speak, and in a form which, your Lordships may think, will require very little amendment.
Having regard to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and the fact that this is an unopposed Bill. I do not think it is necessary to go through it in great detail. Your Lordships will have appreciated the very important and remarkable change which will take place when the Bill comes into law, in that a man will then be able to obtain against his wife the same relief as the wife, in more or less similar circumstances, could obtain against him; in the special circumstances laid down in the Bill a husband may, in fact, be able to obtain maintenance from his wife. It would seem to me, and I imagine to your Lordships, to be a very remarkable result, but as the noble and learned Viscount has told us, it follows upon the various developments which have taken place in this branch of the law in the last few years. I feel that the Bill contains ample provision for dealing with every contingency with regard to children. It covers both illegitimate and adopted children and makes very wide provision for their care and custody, by local authorities, if necessary, in the circumstances which are set out in the Bill. Then there is the provision by which power is given to the courts, where one of the parties to a"matrimonial order," as it is called in the Bill, lives or has gone abroad, to vary or in certain circumstances to do away with an order. That seems a most valuable provision, because I know that in ordinary practice those circumstances have caused considerable difficulty; so that in that respect the provision should be of great advantage.
There is one matter about which I am not altogether happy. The Committee who considered this Bill said that they had had before them the recommendation of the Royal Commission that a notice of allegation of adultery should be sent by registered post to the last known address, if any, of the third person concerned, and that that person should then have the right to appear and
444
defend himself (or herself) against the charge. This Bill does not include that provision, and therefore it will be possible for a third party to be accused of an offence which might be the subject of matrimonial proceedings without having notice of the allegations which were being made against him (or her) in respect of the alleged adultery.
Your Lordships will appreciate that a person's reputation might be greatly affected by a possibly wholly untrue charge made in proceedings of which the third person concerned had no notice. The majority of the Committee considering this Bill, notwithstanding the representations and recommendation of the Royal Commission, did not approve the inclusion in the Bill now before your Lordships of that provision as to the giving of notice to the third party. The minority thought that such a provision should be included, and I should myself express the hope that perhaps, in later proceedings on the Bill, that matter might be considered. For I should have thought that, unless there were strong reasons to the contrary, it would be perfectly right and fair that a third party accused in that respect should have notice of the allegations made against him or her.
There is one point on which I am not clear, and about which perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack can enlighten me, either now or at a later date. There seems to be no provision as to the order which magistrates can make in the possibly not very common case (although it does occur) of a husband bringing proceedings against his wife in respect of her desertion for less than three years, there being no children. I believe I am right in saying that it is not the custom for magistrates' courts—and certainly it ought not to be—to make an order (called a separation order) that the complainant is not bound to cohabit with the defendant. If such an order is made, it does away with the desertion which might thereafter, if it existed for three years, be a ground for divorce. For this reason, the courts, I believe, are averse to making such an order.
There does not appear to be any provision, in the five or six cases set out as examples of orders which may be made, to deal with proceedings where the case

445
is brought by the husband against the wife, and there are no children. If I am right, it may be that an order might be made that the matrimonial offence charged against the defendant had been found to be proved, or something of that kind. But obviously in such a case it would not be desirable to make a separation or non-cohabitation order, such as would be made in the ordinary case.
A further point occurs to me. As your Lordships may know, the Income Tax Act, 1952, enables small maintenance payments to be made without deduction of tax. The limits of such payments are at present £5 in respect of husband or wife, as the case may be; and an order for 30s. may be made in respect of each child, as a maximum figure. Under this Bill it is provided, and I feel quite properly, that the £5 should be increased to £7 10s. and the 30s. for a child to 50s. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether in those circumstances Her Majesty's Government propose to make the increased payments equally"small maintenance payments" as the smaller payments of to-day, because your Lordships will appreciate that if a wife were in receipt of £7 10s. a week under an order and income tax had to be deducted and she had later to make a claim for repayment—which, as your Lordships will probably know, frequently takes some time—in the meantime she would be without the amount which had been deducted. It would seem only reasonable and proper, therefore, that the provision relating to the present small maintenance payments might be extended to the increased amount of £7 10s.
Those are the only comments that I have to make at this stage. I am glad to see that noble and learned Lords who are distinguished members of the Judicial Bench are here. No doubt they will be able to make suggestions for the improvement of what I believe, on the face of it, is a very good Bill. I venture to hope that the House will give it an unopposed Second Reading.
3.40 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have an amended list of speakers to-day will see that it consists of those who are far more qualified to speak on this matter than I am. Indeed, of all the Peers listed every one is, of course, noble, but all but one are also learned.
446
Therefore, having been so imprudent as to have put myself in this position of Daniel in the lions' den, I propose to take the course adopted by the small boy taking a bath: quick in, but quicker out.
My Lords, formally and on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, I should like to welcome this Bill very much as obviously a good tidying-up Bill presented by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. It seems to have everything in its favour. It is progressive and I am sure it will proceed through your Lordships' House without difficulty. In general, Clause 1, which refers to the rights of men as being equal with those of women, is perhaps a rather striking clause; and it was perhaps a little surprising to hear in this year 1959 from the Woolsack that in some, though of course only suitable, circumstances it was quite proper for men to live on the earnings of women. Equality of the sexes has always been an aim perhaps more on this side of the House than on the other, and of course it is a political desirability though it appears to be a physiological nightmare. Apart from that, I think we can say that this Bill is a good one, and I hope it will get a Second Reading without difficulty.
3.42 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I wish to add a few words of welcome and of congratulation to Her Majesty's Government on having introduced such a useful measure. So far as the consolidation provisions are concerned, they are always extremely useful, when nowadays it is a nightmare going through the great volumes of separate Acts of Parliament which cover a subject matter. I find that placing a wife on the same footing as a husband for the purpose of maintaining the spouse and any children of the marriage is a novel but perfectly logical provision. I only hope that when I get to the bathchair stage an order will be made for my wife to push me down Whitehall and place me on the Benches of your Lordships' House.
So far as an order for the maintenance of children is concerned, I understand that this covers"any child of both parties." I am referring to the expression used in Clause 1 (1), paragraphs (h) and (i). The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has dealt with this matter, but I am a very foolish person

447
and I am not absolutely clear what it means. Does the expression"any child of both parties" mean the same thing as"any child of either party"? And does it mean the same thing as the expression"child of the family", which has in recent months crept into matrimonial proceedings in the High Courts?
Let me explain what I mean. A woman has an illegitimate child by a man. Later she marries another man and has children by him. She brings the illegitimate child into the home and the husband accepts that child as one of the family and brings him up with the other children. For certain purposes that illegitimate child is a child of the family. Certainly he or she is so for the purpose of divorce proceedings. But whether or not that illegitimate child, who has become a child of the family, comes within Clause 1 (1), paragraphs (h) and (i), of this Bill is a matter for consideration.
The increase in the amount which may be ordered for maintenance is most welcome, although perhaps a party called upon to pay may take a slightly different view of the matter. It minimises, but does not abolish, the necessity of applications to the High Court for maintenance. The last matter to which I would refer, quite shortly, is to be found in Clause 3 (9) of the Bill, which provides that:
"Any provision of a matrimonial order that a child be under the supervision of a probation officer or local authority shall cease to have effect as respects any child when the child attains the age of sixteen years."
I am getting old, which is quite apparent—I need not mention the matter—and the age of sixteen appears to me to be extremely young. I think your Lordships and I all know of cases of young people of sixteen or seventeen who are left in the world to fend for themselves. The parents are dead or, more likely, have quarrelled and are living with other parties, and the unfortunate child of sixteen or seventeen is left without any real care or supervision at all. I should very much like to see that age of sixteen years increased to eighteen years. Those are only a few suggestions I have to make. I am to be followed by some of the greatest jurists in the
448
country, and having said those few words I will resume my seat.
3.46 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, the importance of this Bill can be seen by realising that some 25,000 applications a year by wives for maintenance come before the magistrates, running at nearly the same rate as divorce petitions. A few years ago, when I had the honour to preside over a Committee which dealt with some of these matters, the amount which could be ordered was £2 a week. By this Bill it is increased to £7 10s. a week. The magistrates deal with these cases with the confidence and trust, I believe, of all the people. Mr. Justice Davies's Committee, in formulating this Bill, have done a great work. Indeed they have followed out in many respects the recommendations of the Royal Commission presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton. First, the law should be codified. Here it is. Then, provision should be made for the children so that the courts, whenever a husband and wife are before them, can see—and it is their duty to see—that proper provision is made for the children. All this is embodied in the Bill.
My only—not really a criticism, but my only doubt is whether Mr. Justice Davies's Committee have been quite bold enough in refusing to follow all the recommendations of Lord Morton of Henryton's Royal Commission. Let me take just a few of them. The first one, of course, and the most spectacular, is that husband and wife should be on an equal footing. Just as in the old days up till now a wife could get an order for maintenance from her husband, so in the future the husband will be able substantially to get the same relief against his wife. For 80 years we have been busy raising women in law to be equal to men. Now we have started on the new departure: to raise men to be equal in law to women—but, indeed, not quite equal, because under this Bill, as I read it, if the wife comes to the court and asks for maintenance she may get it even though she has good earning capacity of her own. The husband, if he comes to the court against his wife, can get it only if his earning capacity is impaired through old age, ill-health or disablement. That is fair enough. All I would

449
suggest—and this Bill does not make it clear—is that when the wife comes for maintenance against her husband, not only her actual means should be taken into account, not only her financial resources, but her earning capacity: what she could earn if she went out to work.
I have had cases before me in which the wife, maybe a young wife, childless, separates from her husband, goes back to her mother, gets an order for maintenance of £3 a week or whatever it may be from the husband, and then is content to draw a pension for life from him, not troubling to go out to work herself. My Lords, if she has earning capacity it ought not to deprive her from coming, but it ought certainly to be taken into account in assessing the amount. Mr. Justice Davies's Committee realised that the practice varied. I would suggest that the practice be made clear that not only the wife's means but her earning capacity should be taken into account.
Another matter in which the Committee do not feel able to go with the Royal Commission is as to the definition of what is an habitual drunkard. Your Lordships might not think it necessary to have a legal definition of an habitual drunkard, or of a drug addict. Lord Morton of Henryton's Commission and another Royal Commission, the Sovell Commission, roundly condemned an old definition, laid down in 1879, as being too stringent, and wanted it made wider. The Committee have kept the old, condemned definition, which was this: An habitual drunkard is a person who, by reason of habitual intemperate drinking (of course, that is one thing), is dangerous at times to himself and others, or is incapable of managing himself and his affairs. My Lords, that does not cover the many cases where the drunkenness is revolting and offensive. It does not cover the case of the man who comes back late night after night—and I have had such cases—is sick over the bedroom floor, and the wife has to clear it up. Nor does it cover the case of the woman who has her secret cupboard: where the husband refuses to let her deal with her grocer for whiskey, and so she gets it from her friends and has her secret cupboard. Lord Morton of Henry-ton's Royal Commission unanimously recommended that the definition should be widened so as to include all cases where the drinking or the addiction to
450
drugs makes life intolerable for the other spouse. My Lords, I should have hoped that in this Bill the condemned definition of 1879 would be brought up to date in the way that Lord Morton of Henryton's Commission recommended.
The third way (a very important one) in which the Committee do not follow the Commission's recommendations is this. The Commission recommended that a wife should be able to get maintenance from her husband without having to leave him. Let me give your Lordships an instance of cases which often arise. It is the case of the man who is a spendthrift, who does not take his pay packet home to his wife, as so many men do, but spends it on gambling or drink or the dogs; and when he gets home on the Friday there are only a few shillings left for the wife and family. If the wife can show, as she could in such a case, that the husband is wilfully neglecting to provide proper maintenance for her, she can get an order against him—£3 a week, or whatever it may be—but she cannot enforce that order unless she leaves her husband. Lord Morton of Henryton's Commission, by 18 to 1, said that that was wrong. By an overwhelming majority they said that a wife should not be compelled to leave the home before she could get maintenance: that she ought to be able to get maintenance whilst living with him, thus keeping the home together. And surely, my Lords, that is right—that a man such as that should have to give proper money to his wife, even if they should live together; and that she should not be compelled to go away before she can get anything. In New Zealand, as the Commission pointed out, they have such a provision, and it works well. Why should we not have it here?
There is one further point—really an important one, too—which the Commission recommended, and that is regarding the law as to condonation. It is a little technical, but I will try to explain it. Take the case where a wife leaves her husband and gets an order for maintenance of, say, £3 a week from him on the ground that he is wilfully neglecting to maintain her. If she goes and commits adultery with another man whilst she is separated, the husband can apply to get the order revoked on the ground of her adultery. If she returns to him and he takes her back, reinstating her

451
as his wife in the house, living together regularly, then, of course, he condones her adultery, and she is reinstated as a wife, with all the ordinary rights of a wife. But what is to happen (as does sometimes happen) if the wife comes back for one day, or for one hour, and persuades her husband to have sexual intercourse with her? My Lords, many guilty wives I have known know the law, or are told of the present law upon the subject, which is that if a husband has sexual intercourse with his wife on one solitary occasion he thereupon condones all her guilt known to him. The one solitary act is sufficient. She may leave him the next moment; but by it he condones her adultery.
Lord Morton of Henryton's Commission recommended that husbands and wives should be on an equal footing in this matter. A wife does not condone her hubsand's adultery simply by one act of sexual intercourse: nor should a husband be held irrevocably to have condoned his wife's adultery. Let me take an actual case on maintenance which appears in the books, and which is referred to in this Committee's Report. It is a case where a wife separated from her husband and got an order for £3 a week from him and £1 a week for the child. She fell in love with another man and committed adultery with him. She then saw her husband, and the husband threatened to stop her money. She went back late one night, persuaded her husband to have intercourse with her, stayed the night, and went off the next day. A little while later the husband again saw her with the man, cuddling in the dark. My Lords, is that wife entitled to her maintenance or not?
Under this Bill, if the definition of condonation remains unamended, that wife, by going back the one night to her husband, retains her right to maintenance because it is irrevocable, irrefutable. The one act of the husband condones all the adultery of the wife. If this Bill is to pass in its present form, with condonation being ground on which the order cannot be revoked. I would ask that the unanimous recommendation of Lord Morton of Henryton's Royal Commission be inserted—namely, that, just as with a wife, so with a husband: one single act of sexual intercourse is not absolutely and irrevocably, by itself, condonation.
452
My Lords, those are merely points which I would ask to be considered. My noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has said that he would invite matters of suggestion. If the law on this important matter is to be codified, I hope we may codify it in the best possible way.
3.59 p.m.
LORD MERRIMAN: My Lords, I feel that, having a certain interest in these matters, I ought to take part in this debate, although I do not intend to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in roving over the whole law about matrimonial causes, and all the recommendations of Lord Morton of Henryton's Commission. But I do want to join in thanking the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the Government for the introduction of this Bill. It has long been fought for. I should declare an interest—two interests, in fact. I preside habitually, as some of your Lordships know, over the appeals from magistrates in our Divisional Court; and it is rare that we do not have to search the books for two or three Acts of Parliament out of the twelve or so which one has to look at—and believe me, my Lords, they are not all contained in the same textbook. Now we have them all on a few sheets of paper in one Bill, and that is an enormous improvement.
I should also like to join in thanking Mr. Justice Davies (a very old friend and formerly a colleague of mine) and his Committee for their work in this matter. They have done a wonderful job. May I also take this opportunity of associating myself most fully with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in what he said about the way in which magistrates do this work. I have said this to the Morton Commission; I have said it when I have had an opportunity of doing so at magistrates' meetings, and I desire to say it publicly in your Lordships' House. I have been associated with these appeals, during the last 26 years, and the way in which magistrates do their work—and it is very difficult work—has to be seen to be believed. When I first became President, it was the exception to get anything that could reasonably be called a note of the evidence, or an intelligible statement of the reasons which had actuated the

453
decision. Now it is very much the exception not to get an excellent note and an admirably clear statement of the reasons. I think that to some extent that is due to the habit which has prevailed since 1935 of having special panels for this class of work. Magistrates are constantly dealing with matrimonial causes, and they are keen on doing their job well. Whatever the reason, the fact is plain that we owe the magistrates an enormous debt of gratitude for the way in which this vast bulk of work is conducted.
Haying said that, I want to reassure magistrates, if I may, about one thing in this Bill, which possibly may be worrying some of them. The addition to the rights of husbands against wives is not wholly an innovation, because, as many of your Lordships know, even now the husband can sue for an order against his wife on the grounds of adultery, of cruelty to the children, of habitual drunkenness or of addiction to drugs. So that there is nothing new in the principle of the husband suing the wife. It is perfectly true that he will now be able to sue for cruelty and desertion, but I do not think that that will be a very large addition to the burden, for this reason: that a wife who is a deserter is precluded under the existing Acts from getting an order. Desertion often takes the form of expelling one spouse from the home by cruelty, and it is a common occurrence in cases now that, as an answer to the wife's complaint, the husband charges her with desertion in one or other of these ways. In the circumstances this extension is not really a fresh addition to the magistrates' duties. At any rate, I do not think that it is a serious matter and I am quite confident that, whether it is heavy or light, it will be faced with the same skill and patience with which all these cases are dealt.
4.5 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in view of the other business before your Lordships to-day, I hope that noble Lords who have spoken, to whom I am greatly indebted for what they have said, will not take it amiss if I suggest that certain matters should either stand over to the Committee stage or he dealt with by correspondence. Having said that, I should like to express
454
my real gratitude to noble Lords who have taken part, and especially, if I may reverse the order, to my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman for his last remarks with regard to magistrates, apart from the rest of his speech. As I said in opening this discussion, too often the life of a magistrate is one of criticism for every slip-up and no praise for the really hard and continuous work to which he gives up his time. I hope that magistrates will appreciate what my noble and learned friend has said from his experience in dealing with these cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, raised three points. As I have said, I will deal with them briefly. The noble Lord will find the arguments on his first point, as to the notice of allegation of adultery, dealt with on page 3 of the Davies Report. Perhaps when he has had a chance of considering them again, we could discuss the matter; or he could put down an Amendment on Committee stage. The position with regard to the effect of a non-cohabitation clause was stated accurately by the noble Lord, I think, subject to what my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman would say, but I am still in some doubt about to where we should go from there—whether the position is not that this provision is really wanted in separation orders for the reasons that the noble Lord gave. But, again, if he has any suggestion I shall be glad to look at it. As to his third point, the noble Lord will appreciate, from his long Parliamentary experience, that I am in a"danger zone" with regard to next year's Finance Bill, and in accordance with precedent all I can say is that the matter will be considered by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the noble Lord will realise that that is all I can say at the moment.
I will consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, had to say. His first point is dealt with by the Davies Committee on page 29 of their Report, and the second point, on habitual drunkards, is dealt with on page 27. On his third point, whether a wife should be able to get a maintenance order while still living with her husband, I should like to tell the noble and learned Lord that I considered this point very carefully. I shared the Davies

455
Committee's hesitation because I felt that this would give magistrates' courts a difficult and invidious task, if they were required to intervene to this extent in the internal management of the ordinary household, particularly when we consider that the ordinary machinery for the enforcement of matrimonial orders made by the magistrates' courts includes committal to prison and attachment orders. I will, however, consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, and I am grateful to him for responding to my request. With regard to his fourth point, on condonation, he will appreciate that to apply that to the magistrates' court when it would remain the law in the High Court would be a difficult matter. Therefore I hope he will rest content if I say that that matter also will be considered and I shall not forget what he has had to say.
I think my noble friend Lord Meston will find that the point which was worrying him, about the illegitimate child of one party of the marriage who is adopted in the family, was one that I dealt with rather fully in my opening speech. I would ask the noble Lord to read my speech—a labour which I hesitate to impose upon him just before the Christmas holidays—and I should be grateful to have his view after he has considered the matter again. My noble friend—I mean the noble Lord, Lord Rea (I nearly broke the Party convention, because we happen to have been personal friends for something over 40 years), made such a charming speech that I hesitate even to say this. When he said that the Party which he leads with such distinction had always taken a stronger position than other Parties on the equality of the sexes, I would only say this to him. If he will read a book written by the lady to whom I referred, and edited with great distinction by the noble Lord, Lord PethickLawrence, on the Suffragette movement, I think he will find that his remarks to-day will cause the Liberal leaders of the Government of 1910 to 1914 to purr in their graves with satisfied surprise.
LORD REA: I did not say the whole Party.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has exposed a flank; but, as I say, before Christmas I will not even
456
direct your Lordships' attention to it. I will go through all the other points and consider them carefully. In certain cases I will write to noble Lords who have put them forward, and in other cases I suggest that noble Lords might put down an Amendment on the Committee stage when I shall be delighted to give a considered view. With that deliberately short reply, I should like to thank your Lordships for your contributions to the debate and the sympathy which you have shown to the Bill, and ask you to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ORGANISATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE POLICE
4.14 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON EARL WINTERTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when the terms of reference of the proposed inquiry into the organisation and administration of the Metropolitan and provincial police forces will be announced; and whether these terms of reference will include consideration of the causes of the increase in crime. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I understand that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is going to make an important announcement in reply to my Question about the terms of reference of the Committee or Commission (I am not sure which it is) that is to be set up. I hope it is not being unduly conceited to say that the fact that this Question of mine was put on the Paper may have had some slight effect in accelerating a decision, because it is some time ago since the Home Secretary announced that he was going to set up a Committee or Commission, and only to-day, I understand, is the announcement going to be made. In those circumstances I do not ask my noble and learned friend to reply to any of the points which I am going to put forward in connection with this Question: I should be quite satisfied if he would be so kind as to say he will take note of them and pass them on to the appropriate channels, because he will naturally want to read out in full the decision.
I want to make one slightly personal observation, and it is this. No one could

457
have a greater admiration for the Home Secretary, both as an individual and as a statesman, than I have; he is an old friend of mine of more than 30 years' standing. However, I do not know whether the rest of your Lordships would agree with me when I say that, in my opinion, in public life nothing is more immoral than if you sincerely disagree with any statesman, whether he is of your own Party or of another Party, than to refrain from expressing that disagreement because of personal friendship. I am afraid that in the course of my observations I must make some comments of a not too favourable nature upon the control of the Home Office during the present Home Secretary's tenure of it.
I should like to call your Lordships' attention to a curious fact—what I would describe as a complete contrast. I raised in your Lordships' House the very questions which in another place the Home Secretary said would be the subject of consideration by the inquiry, and I had most valuable support. I was supported, for example, by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Labour Opposition, and no fewer than three newspapers said that they agreed with what I had said and that the answer of the Minister (I would say in parenthesis that I do not blame the Minister, because he was obviously reading from a brief given to him by the Home Office) was most unsatisfactory. It seems strange that there should be this astonishing contrast. Months later the Government agree to exactly what I asked for and was refused in your Lordships' House in the summer.
There could be two explanations of this, one of them most unfavourable to myself and to your Lordships' House and the other very flattering. The unfavourable one would be that the Government might say:"Well, this was only raised by an old and unimportant Peer, and, after all, it does not matter much what the House of Lords says or decides; it is only when the Commons start chasing the fox that we have to take steps to get away." The flattering one, of course, would be that the Government were impressed with the almost unanimous support which I received in your Lordships' House for the points which I put in favour of some form of inquiry, in view of the very grave circumstances
458
with which we are faced, both as regards the shortage of police and the amount of crime that there is in the country.
The next point that I want to make is an even more delicate one. I have consulted one or two in high places—not in this Government, but who occupied high positions in former Governments—who like myself have been in the Cabinet, not confined to one Party, and they are unanimously of the opinion that for one man to sustain the burden of the most onerous office in the Government, except perhaps that of the Premiership and of the Foreign Office—more onerous in a way than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of the human problems with which he is faced—and at the same time to be Leader of the House of Commons and also Chairman of the Conservative Party places an almost impossible burden upon a Minister. They go on to say—and some, at any rate, of the persons whom I have asked are very friendly with and, like me, greatly admire the Home Secretary—that they think that the reason for delay in reaching decisions in a number of matters is due to this impossible burden which the Home Secretary is carrying at the present time.
Let me mention two matters where there should have been a decision a long time ago. One of them is the question of whether or not it is possible to have a corps, or whatever one likes to call it, of people, enlisted for the purpose—not policemen—who will deal with traffic offences and traffic control in London. Suggestions to this end have been made again and again. I understand from what looks like inspired statements in the Press that the energetic Minister of Transport has persuaded his colleagues that at least a corps to deal with motor offences—I used the words"traffic offences" by mistake—is under consideration. Why was not a decision reached in this matter a long time ago? Why wait all this time, when the situation is getting worse and worse?
The next point is this. Everybody knows—and no Minister can deny it—that the main reason why you cannot get policemen in the Metropolitan Area and in some provincial areas is due to two causes. They are that the pay and emoluments are not sufficiently attractive to compete with industry, and the housing

459
situation of married police is profoundly unsatisfactory. I worked in a curious colleagueship with a Member of another place, Mrs. Braddock, and we raised this question of housing the police on two or three occasions. She gave another reason, and gave examples of what happens in some provincial towns, where the housing authority absolutely refuses to help the watch committee or the chief constable in providing accommodation for married constables, mainly on the ground that people in the housing centres do not like to have policemen living among them. Why was not this dealt with months ago? It is said that it is very difficult to get policemen, and an almost impossible task. What a scandal it is that in this Metropolitan Police Area we should be short of 3,000 men at a time when crime is rising continuously!
The Army and, to a lesser extent, the R.A.F. were faced a few years ago with exactly the same position. They could not get recruits, and the recruits who did come forward were of a bad character—I mean, of course, voluntary recruits. Then, as a result of the energy of various Defence Ministers—and I think great credit is probably due to Mr. Sandys—the Chancellor of the Exchequer was induced to give such terms of pay and emoluments that an astonishing thing has happened. I understand that to-day the Army is quite satisfied with the recruits, both as to quantity and quality. Why cannot the Home Secretary and the police authorities do the same thing? Why has not anybody asked them about it? There is a feeling in the Conservative Party that you must not do anything to criticise the present Home Secretary, because he might be the next Prime Minister. But if things have happened under his administration which require criticism, then they should be criticised. I do not know any answer to the two points that I have put forward.
My third point is this. It was denied by the Government spokesman, when I raised the question in the summer, that there was any real difference of opinion between those whom I called redemptionists and the deterrers—the redemptionists being those who believe that the prime object of punishment and imprisonment should be to redeem the
460
prisoner, and the deterrers who believe that the prime object was to prevent crime from being committed, and, if it was committed, to make the penalties and punishment so unpleasant that it would deter people in future. I am on very delicate ground, but it would seem that there is some evidence that distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, such as the present and the former Lord Chief Justice, are on the side of the deterrers. They have advocated severe penalties, and one at least has suggested the use of the birch. I think it is pretty obvious that the Home Secretary is slightly, at any rate, on the side of the redemptionists. If he is not, I do not understand this state of affairs.
Some years ago I had the honour of representing in another place—a curious position for a Tory, but I was asked to do it—the Prison Officers' Association. When I was at the Home Office I visited a number of prisons, and I was immensely impressed with the quality of the prison officers. I deeply resent the attacks made upon them in some quarters. It is an open secret—and nobody can deny it—that some form of corporal punishment for physical assault on warders was put in the Criminal Justice Act at the request of the Prison Officers' Association. I saw the other day some most disturbing figures. There may be an explanation, and I hope the Committee of Inquiry will go into the matter. In a number of cases where the visiting magistrates had advised that there should be birching or some form of corporal punishment, the Home Secretary had refused to confirm, or had refused to accept, that advice. Of course, there may have been medical reasons for this, but, if so, it seems strange that it should not have been put before the visiting magistrates. In the last debate we had appropriate tributes from more than one noble Lord about the magistrates of this country. I should have thought that visiting magistrates were perfectly capable of deciding whether the prisoner should, or should not, have corporal punishment. The failure of the Home Secretary to confirm this order in several cases has caused a certain amount of perturbation.
I turn to the next question with which I wish to trouble your Lordships, and I hope it will be taken into consideration by the Committee. I think that here no

461
Party issue arises. Noble Lords on both sides of the House will agree with me that one of the great difficulties of the police, and one of the reasons why they find it difficult to deal with the more serious crimes, is the multiplicity of offences of every kind which we have on the Statute Book to-day and which are constantly being added to. A rather ridiculous situation has arisen in the case of some of these provisions. To use a vulgar phrase, there was a great"Ha, Ha," and feeling of self-congratulation in another place and in your Lordships' House, when we passed the Litter Act. As any of your Lordships who use Waterloo Station will agree, it is a complete and absolute dead letter. People throw down every sort of filth in front of the railway police on duty there, and there has not been a single conviction so far as I know. Passing these Acts which cannot be enforced, or which are difficult to enforce, makes the position of the police very difficult.
In order to make matters worse, an astonishing proposal has been made by the most reverend Primate, in which he wants to make adultery a crime. I do not wish to attack the most reverend Primate on this occasion—I have done so on many other occasions—and in fact he has been the subject of ferocious attack by Sir Alan Herbert, the Daily Telegraph and a Canon of St. Paul's, who thought he was mad. But I would say quite seriously that I do not think the most reverend Primate could have thought very carefully over the result of his action. I believe that the number of divorces for adultery runs into four figures. Of course, there are plenty of other reasons for divorce. If this law had been put into operation a year ago then, of course, it might have had a deterrent effect in the future, but there would have been at least another 1,000 people in prison. I do not wish to offend anybody, but it might indeed include some Members of your Lordships' House, to judge from what one reads in the newspapers.
Can noble Lords conceive the sort of situation that would arise? Presumably if the law was to be enforced there would have to be an adultery squad at Scotland Yard in the same way that there is a fraud squad. Then what a wonderful opportunity this would give to the popular Press to attack people in
462
prominent positions, including people in your Lordships' House! I can see the sort of headline,"Member of adultery squad interrogates Duke: what was he doing during the week-end when the Duchess was away?";"Member of the adultery squad interrogates well-known Peer: why did he go to Paris without the Countess, and who was the girl he took with him?". I mention this as showing how fantastic is the suggestion that such an Act should be passed, and because it illustrates my point that one of the difficulties of the police—this very over-worked body, especially the C.I.D.—is the multiplicity of laws.
I have only three other short points to make, and here probably noble Lords opposite will find themselves in dissidence with me, but I think I shall have sympathy on this side of the House. I believe, and I have some evidence from those who are much better equipped to judge these matters than I am, that harm is being done to the maintenance of law and order by the sympathy in many quarters, some of them very respectable and high-minded, shown for actual criminals and also for agitators who encourage people to break the law. I will give two or three examples: Marwood and Podola, in the matter of sympathy with criminals; the astonishing attitude which many people took up about Archbishop Makarios in the days when he was condoning, by refusing to condemn them, the murders of British subjects; the way in which Members, outside your Lordships' House I hope, make a sort of martyr of Dr. Banda and suggest to the Government that they are almost behaving like the, Government of some of the Iron Curtain countries.
I think that this is doing harm, and that it is doing harm to those who use this argument. A respected member of the Labour Party said the other day that he thought the Opposition had lost votes at the Election by stressing so much the position of Nyasaland and Dr. Banda; they had given the impression that they were on the side of lawbreakers. An amusing friend of mine in another place said,"I only hope the Socialist Party will continue with their black lobby'; that is the best way I know for them to lose the next Election." That is the sort of attitude—the attitude of consideration for those who break the law or encourage others to

463
break the law—that obviously makes it more difficult for the police in this country and the forces of law and order generally to impress upon the public, and especially the young, how necessary it is for them to have regard to the need for self-discipline.
Now my last two points, which are very short ones, are these.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, I feel I must protest about his suggestion that we on this side of the House have sympathy with law breakers, in particular, Podola.
EARL WINTERTON: I never said so.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is what it sounded very much like to me and my friends just now. I hope that if I am wrong the noble Earl will make it perfectly clear that that was not his intention.
EARL WINTERTON: I never mentioned noble Lords opposite. If the noble Lord had listened he would have heard me say I was not referring to anyone in this House. I do not say for a moment that the Labour Party as a whole had sympathy with Podola or Marwood, but a number of Members in the other place—and owing to reasons of etiquette I cannot say who they were—showed, I suggest, undue tenderness in the Podola case, and suggested, which was proved completely wrong, that he had been beaten up by the police. They showed a sort of sympathy, not with the crime but with the criminal.
LORD SHEPHERD: If the facts then appeared to point to the position that he had been beaten up, surely it was right and just and honourable for Members of Parliament to raise a voice of protest?
EARL WINTERTON: If they thought so; if they were so foolish in face of all the evidence as to think something had happened which had not happened, of course they were entitled to do so. In regard to the other question, the agitators, I do not think the noble Lord would deny the sympathy shown by his Party with various agitators in various places. I want to leave that subject and come to my last two points.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before the noble Earl goes on, can he not see that there is a very great distinction between sympathising with Mau Mau murderers, which we on this side never did, and sympathising with the victims of gross brutality in Hola camp? That is the great difference. That is the attitude that we on this side of the House took up.
EARL WINTERTON: The noble Lord will not mind my speaking very frankly. He and I have been Members of another place and I will answer him as I would have answered in another place. It would be a little more honest on the part of the Opposition if they showed less excessive sympathy with what I admit was a deplorable incident, Hola Camp, and more sympathy with the victims of the various Governments behind the Iron Curtain. That is my answer to the noble Lord. I am very glad noble Lords differ from me. One of the objects of this debate was to bring out the difficulties of the police, which I think to some extent have been increased by the attitude that some Members—not of noble Lords opposite, but their Party—have taken up.
My last two points are these. When I raised this question originally I pointed out that there were no effective means for either a policeman aggrieved by the action of a watch committee or a chief constable, or a member of the public similarly aggrieved, to get any redress. I said that if he wrote to his member on the local council, the member would merely refer the matter to the chairman of the watch committee or the chief constable, and nothing would happen. I said that this differentiated the position from what happens in London. It appears to me that I was not quite accurate in saying that there was this great differentiation, because the most astonishing thing happened the other day.
Here no Party issue arises. Members of another place, irrespective of Party, were concerned at the way the Chief Commissioner settled a case out of court for £300, the result of which was that neither the civil servant who had originally alleged that he had been seriously assaulted, nor the policeman who denied the assault, was able to have his position considered in court

465
which is, after all, the only place where it can be considered. The Home Secretary, as noble Lords who read his answers will see, was very anxious to make it clear that he did not necessarily approve or disapprove of the Chief Commissioner's action. He merely said that the evidence was conflicting. Of course the evidence would be conflicting unless it went to court; it was bound to be conflicting; the police said one thing and the aggrieved party something else.
He then went on to say that the Home Secretary could not direct the Chief Commissioner how he should act. The only thing he could do would be to dismiss him. This is the most difficult and delicate subject of all, and not, I am glad to say, one on which I think there is any difference of opinion on either side of the House. I sincerely hope that this Committee or Commission will examine this most difficult question. I fully realise that nothing could be more calamitous than that either a Chief Constable in the Provinces or a Chief Commissioner should be made the victim of political spite or any other form of spite, as happens in some countries, and be removed; and no doubt it is right to give him as firm a tenure of office as possible.
But a most interesting situation arises. I will not attempt to cross the"t's" and dot the"i's", but in more than one police area there has been under the present police head a steady increase in crime, a failure to recruit sufficient policemen and various incidents. If the men, whether they be Chief Constables or Chief Commissioners, who occupy these posts had been distinguished soldiers, sailors or airmen, probably they would have been removed. It is a well-known fact, as so many of your Lordships who have had the immense experience of Service life know, that a high commander in any of the three Services may not in the least be personally responsible for a defeat or for a scandal, or whatever it may be, under his command, but that does not prevent him from being removed, either in peace time or in war. So, therefore, these gentlemen are in a unique position. I do not know how it can be dealt with. Obviously, it is a matter which it is not for me to deal with; it would be for the members of the Inquiry and for those of your Lord
466
ships with high judicial experience. But I think it is a most important question.
My Lords, that is all I have to say, except that I sincerely hope that this Committee will go into the question of the enormous number of police forces and of the smallness of some of them. Since last I spoke on this subject in your Lordships' House I have been told of one police authority consisting of 22 men in all. How can you expect to get efficiency in so small a force? In such a force there is so little chance of promotion that you cannot get the best men. I still think that there will have to be a far more drastic attitude towards merging. I greatly hope that the Commission or Committee will also go into the question of the relationship between inspectors of constabulary and the provincial police forces, because we had some rather disturbing replies from the noble Lord who replied for the Government last time on that subject. He said that they were not responsible for discipline. This is, of course, mixed up with the position of the officers. I am greatly obliged to so many of your Lordships who have listened to me, and I shall await with great interest what the noble and learned Viscount says as to the terms of reference of the Inquiry.
4.44 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I wish briefly to ask the noble and learned Viscount three questions, in the hope that he will be able to say whether they will be included for consideration in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission which I understand is to be appointed. Before doing so, I should like to make two brief references to what the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, said, although I shall endeavour not to follow him in most of his remarks, because I do not imagine that most of the subjects he dealt with could possibly be within the terms of reference of the Inquiry. One is in respect of myself, because I think I was the only Member of your Lordships' House who tabled a Question with regard to the condemned, and now deceased, murderer, Padola. But my Question, which was adjudged to be sub judice, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will remember, I did not pursue; it was tabled merely with the object of trying to get some information long before there was any evidence on the subject.

467
I think that if the day ever comes when any Member of your Lordships' House refrains from asking for information on a subject of that kind, when it appears likely that there may have been some injustice, then it will be a very bad day for all of us.
The second point is that the noble Earl complained (if I do not put it too strongly) about the fact that his right honourable friend the Home Secretary had, in a recent case, reversed a decision of the visiting magistrates at Exeter gaol awarding corporal punishment to a prisoner for an assault—
EARL WINTERTON: I said"recent cases". I said that there were several cases, not merely one.
LORD STONHAM: It does not alter the purport of what I am going to say. That was the case that I had in mind, when visiting justices awarded corporal punishment to a prisoner adjudged guilty of an assault on prison officers. I do not believe that any noble Lords on these Benches will condone, support or do otherwise than condemn such acts of brutality. But I hope that, even if this matter is included in the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry, they will not in any respect interfere, or attempt to do so, with the prerogative of Her Majesty's Home Secretary in this matter. I should have thought that visiting magistrates do their best to fit the punishment to the crime. It is then the duty of the Home Secretary to fit the punishment to the prisoner. In addition to that, he has to take other matters into consideration. I would remind your Lordships that in regard to a court-martial, when there has been a sentence of death, that sentence is always subject to promulgation. I should have thought that was exactly the relationship of the Home Secretary in matters of this kind.
The first question that I want to address to the noble and learned Viscount is whether the terms of reference of the Royal Commission will include the question of the pay of police officers. In my humble submission, the whole of the work of the Commission will be virtually useless unless it tackles this important question. We are all used to referring to our policemen as"wonderful." It is a sort of cliché. But
468
it is a cliché which in many ways does a great deal of harm. Our policemen are not wonderful, and the public know it. Our policemen are, and always will be, ordinary working men, of average intelligence and superior physique, who are under discipline. They do their duty, often in the most dangerous circumstances, nearly always in the most unpleasant circumstances, and even ordinary routine duty in blazing sun, freezing cold and pouring rain. In that respect they are wonderful; they are just as wonderful as miners, steel workers and farm workers who do their job. In other words, they are ordinary men—with this difference, that they are ordinary men with power.
To-day, these men are being paid far less than many of their counterparts in industry. In my lifetime, within my memory, that represents a radical change. When I was a young man it was a common thing for a stiff-built chap from the countryside to come to the Metropolis or to some other town, and become a member of the police force. He was paid a higher wage than his counterpart in industry; he enjoyed a superior status in society, and a pension. In many respects he was like the old time railwayman, far above his industrial counterpart. In the rural community he may have been an ordinary policeman without promotion all his life, but he stood out and enjoyed a dignity and respect which, unfortunately, in the main part, policemen do not enjoy today. One basis of that is that they have lost a lot of that status. Unfortunately, a young policeman starting at £9 a week must, because of his profession, mix with a lot of unpleasant people—many of them moneyed people, who, because they are on the wrong side of the law subject him to temptations and corruptions which he may not be able to withstand. Therefore, I regard this item of pay as absolutely fundamental. The deplorable increase in offences committed by police officers which we read about in the Press virtually every day is confirmation of what I say.
The second point I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is this. Will there be an inquiry into the investigation of complaints by the public against the police; and will it be enacted that when such complaints are made, and thought worthy

469
of investigation, they shall not be investigated by police officers? The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, and others who have had experience in another place, will know that on occasions we have had to submit a case to the Home Secretary. I will not give the details now, because I have not given notice to any former Home Secretary, but it has happened to me on several occasions that I have known—and not only because I have had the evidence: I have been told by the police—that a man has been"framed". Knowing that, I have taken all possible evidence to the Home Secretary and asked for an inquiry. That has been immediately granted, and within about ten days I have had a letter telling me that nothing can be done. As I have known that there has been no time for an inquiry I have gone back to the Home Secretary and insisted on an inquiry; and that has been carried out by police officers, with the same result. I would submit that justice must not only he done but must be seen to be done; and it cannot be done if, in inquiries of this kind, a police officer makes an inquiry about other police officers. It must be carried out by an independent civilian.
The third and final point that I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount concerns the question of promotion and relations between the Criminal Investigation Department and uniformed officers. It is the case that after three or four years a bright young constable can be transferred to the C.I.D. There he may wait ten years before he becomes a sergeant; and it may be 20 years before he becomes an inspector. Meanwhile, the not quite so bright man still in uniform may have become an inspector within 10 or 15 years. So there is the situation that the C.I.D. man of greater seniority and experience is in a position of inferiority to the uniformed man, because the uniformed many always takes charge in the division. That leads to friction and unfortunate circumstances, and I hope that it is a matter which can be inquired into. Above all, however, I hope that the question of pay can be looked into. I believe that the Royal Commission can do a very useful service, and even if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack cannot say to-night that these points will be dealt with, I hope that they may
470
be considered and put before the Commission.
4.53 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies, will he permit me to ask him one or two questions, which I can promise him will not be very exciting but are wholly relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. Will the Royal Commission be able to solve the age-old question which is continually and increasingly disturbing the public, and make clear who is responsible for the enforcement of the law? I ask that question because if there is a sad and wholly wrong thing in a democracy, it is for the law to be into disrepute; and, as I have said in your Lordships' House and all over the country, the road tragic laws of this country are in disrepute today because of a lack of enforcement.
I am told—with what truth I should like the noble and learned Viscount to tell me—that there is only one authority who can enforce the law, or bring a case so that the law can be enforced; that is, the authority of a chief constable. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount: is it right that a decision on whether prosecutions are brought for infringement of the Road Traffic Acts should rest wholly and solely with a chief constable? There will soon be 12 million motor vehicles being driven on our roads, and if a decision does rest with the chief constable it means that the law can be enforced in a different manner in every town or county through which one goes.
It is commonly supposed that one cannot park a motor car where there is a"No parking" sign. The obverse is sometimes accepted—that one can park where there is not such a sign. That is not true. One cannot park one's car anywhere if, in the opinion of those who have responsibility for the enforcement of the law it causes, or is likely to cause, an obstruction. I quite agree with that; but there is no uniformity. One chief constable will hold one view, and the chief constable of the next town will hold another; and if you have safely parked your car in a side street in one town and are prosecuted when you do the same in the next town, it is no defence to say,"The police let me do that in the town I was in last night." So I

471
would ask the noble and learned Viscount: Is this to be one of the points to which this Royal Commission will give attention? Is that possible?
All power to the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport! He excites my admiration, and I hope that he succeeds in bringing the traffic in every town under his control—although I do not know whether he knows what he is up against. But until that happens, can we have some guidance? If only we knew the crimes we can commit, under the Statutes which Parliament churns out by the thousand, by statutory instrument, every time we sit behind the steering wheel of a motor car, we should never get behind a steering wheel; and yet those provisions are unenforceable. Is that right? Is it good? I do not pretend to supply the answer. I am only asking a question of the noble Viscount. Will it be within the powers of this Royal Commission to say to Parliament:"Before ever you pass any more laws for goodness' sake see that they stand some reasonable chance of enforcement."? There were put into the Road Traffic Act provisions affecting cyclists which were the same as those affecting drivers of motor vehicles. There are 20 million cyclists, however. How can any police force ever enforce those regulations with fairness to 20 million people? That is my simple question. Will such matters as the enforcement of law and who is responsible, the uniformity of enforcement and the possibilities of enforcement, be subjects with which this Royal Commission will deal?
4.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it would be for your Lordships general convenience if I were to deal first with the first half of the Question of my noble friend, Lord Winterton:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government when the terms of reference will be announced …"
because I have the honour to announce the terms of reference which answers that point. Perhaps then I may deal with questions in regard to these terms which have been asked by the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Lucas of Chilworth; then deal with the second half of the Question which is on the Order Paper; and, lastly, say a few words in
472
answer to the general points raised by the noble Earl, and particularly in answer to his attack on my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I have known the noble Earl for 40 years, and one of the great honours which I think I possess is to have been a friend of his for the last 25. And I am sure that he would be the first person to hold in supreme contempt a Minister who heard an attack like that made on a colleague and did not reply to it.
EARL WINTERTON: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may therefore deal with the matters in that order, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made a statement in another place this afternoon about the proposed inquiry into the organisation and administration of the Metropolitan and provincial police forces. The statement was as follows—and I quote:
"The Queen has been pleased to approve the setting up of a Royal Commission on Police with the following terms of reference:
"To review the constitutional position of the police throughout Great Britain, the arrangements for their control and administration and, in particular, to consider:—

(1) the constitution and functions of local police authorities;

(2) the status and accountability of members of police forces including chief officers of police;

(3) the relationship of the police with the public and the means of ensuring that complaints by the public against the police are effectively dealt with; and

(4) the broad principles which should govern the remuneration of the constable, having regard to the nature and extent of police duties and responsibilities and the need to attract and retain an adequate number of recruits with the proper qualifications.

"I am glad to be able to announce that the Right Honourable Sir Henry Willink, Bart., M.C., Q.C., will act as Chairman of the Royal Commission. I hope to be

473
able to announce the names of members of the Commission shortly."
That is the Prime Minister's statement.
If I may now deal with the points that were raised in anticipation by the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I think that the first point, the question of pay, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will appreciate, is covered. I want to make the position quite clear, because I know the interest he takes in this matter. He will remember what I said about the broad principles, because the noble Lord is well aware that there was a detailed consideration by a Committee under my noble and learned friend Lord Oaksey in 1949. Now this Inquiry, of course, is directed to the main point which the noble Lord put before the House:
"the broad principles which should govern the remuneration … having regard to the nature and extent of police duties and responsibilities and the need Ito attract and retain … recruits. …"
It is the broad principles; and it seemed to me that that was what the noble Lord had primarily in mind. The second paint which he raised concerned complaints by the public against the police. I read again the words in the statement that I have just given your Lordships:
"… ensuring that complaints by the public against the police are effectively dealt with."
It would be wrong for me to go further. But clearly the Royal Commission will have the opportunity of considering exactly the point which the noble Lord raised. I think that is the correct way to put it at the moment.
The third point, with regard to the question of the C.I.D. and the uniformed force, is, of course, one of the matters of the"control and administration" of the police mentioned in the Commission's terms of reference. I am sure that the members of the Royal Commission will read this debate and have it in mind; and, in addition, I am sure that many other bodies which the noble Lord mentioned will also have this point in mind. Again, it is for the Royal Commission to interpret their terms of reference, but one must apply common sense to this matter, and I am sure that the noble Lord will be satisfied that the matter will be brought to their atten
474
tion. I think that that deals with the three points. At any rate, I have tried to deal with them fully and without any equivocation.
With regard to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, of course, that is the very wide point of whether one believes in local or central administration. I should prefer—and I hope the noble Lord will not take it amiss—not to express any view to-day, because the terms I read were very wide—"the arrangements for their control and administration"—and I should prefer to leave that point. May I put it this way? The noble Lord is, so far as I know, perfectly correct in saying that the prosecuting authority (apart from those cases where it is a matter for the fiat of the Attorney General, or some cases where it is necessary to get the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions) is the chief constable. As the noble Lord knows, the classical argument (I am not going to discuss it at all to-night) over that is that he should not be subject—whether the police authority is the Home Secretary, in London, or a local watch committee or the standing joint committee of a county council—to political or extraneous influences in deciding whether to prosecute. I hope the noble Lord will not think I am discourteous—I do not think he will—if I do not enter into that question, but clearly it is a constitutional matter of great importance.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. Could he answer just this simple question? Will it come within the purview—if I am not asking an improper question—of those terms of reference, as he would interpret them, to cover the point?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, when one is Lord Chancellor, and therefore the opinions of the office, whatever be the value of the individual, have a certain weight, it is rather difficult to begin to interpret the terms. I would rather not attempt that to-night. It is not through any lack of desire, but because it would be rather difficult if I did.
I have dealt with the first two parts of the Answer I had in mind for the

475
House. The next part of the Question of my noble friend Lord Winterton was
"whether these terms of reference will include consideration of the causes of the increase in crime."
My Lords, in regard to that part of the noble Earl's question, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the causes of crime are not a subject which can be conveniently examined in conjunction with the structure of police administration. The noble Earl, with his immense Parliamentary and administrative experience, will realise that the Royal Commission will be vitally concerned with the structure of police administration, and the constitutional position of the constable, which covers the relationship of the police and public and the police and Parliament. The Royal Commission may consider—it is a matter for them but they may consider—that police powers and police practice are relevant to the relationship of police and public and to other matters within their terms of reference. Causes of crime (we have debated them so often in your Lordships' House) obviously involve a profundity of other matters, including religion, ethics, education, youth service, recreation and penology, to name only a few—apart from the question of the efficacy of detection. That is the third part of my answer.
Now I should like to deal with the attack by the noble Earl on my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The first ground of the attack that he made was that my right honourable friend had three offices: Home Secretary, Leader of the House of Commons, and Chairman of the Conservative Party. My Lords, I venture to make three answers to that. The first is that my right honourable friend is one of the ablest and most hardworking people that I have ever met in my life.
EARL WINTERTON: We all agree.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The second is that it is not for me to criticise a combination of offices decided upon by the Prime Minister. However, when I was Home Secretary I was also Minister for Welsh Affairs, which involved visiting that delectable Principality—I see my noble friend Lord Aberdare is here—some 25 times a year. My Lords, I do not think that the offices are too much.
476
The third point is that I am very surprised to find my noble friend Lord Winterton as a leader of the work-shy movement. One of the most depressing features of modern life is the way people are afraid of hard work. I think that the more work that you get, the more the human mind responds. It is like a motor car engine: the more it is"revved up" by hard work, the more easily it takes hills in front of it. I hope my noble friend Lord Winterton will believe that this is a most serious view, on which I have tried, successfully or not, to conduct my own life: that is, that the more responsibility you have, and the harder the work in front of you, the more you are trained and able to do hard work. I have always found that my right honourable friend Mr. Butler is an adherent of the same school of thought, and I have no doubts about him on that score.
Now the noble Earl took two examples. One was the delay in establishing traffic wardens. Of course, whenever it is suggested that anything should be done, it is always possible to say why it was not done earlier. I hate relying upon my memory, but I spent hours and days and weeks, with the constant assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, considering road traffic Bills in this House, and I should not have thought—I do not want to put it too high—that traffic wardens was one of the matters which was stressed in our discussions. I do not say that it was not mentioned, but I do not think it was one of the key points. And the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will agree that we all did our best to consider the problems of London traffic and the suggestions which came from every quarter of the House.
The other example was with regard to police houses. The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, referred to a campaign in regard to this matter, in which he assisted, before October, 1951. I can tell him, with the greatest possible respect, that he is out of date on that point. I do not want to make it appear as if I was pleased with myself, and I hope your Lordships will not take it that way, but I became Home Secretary on October 26, 1951, and I can tell the noble Earl that I was fully aware of this problem, and that I did my best. Of course,

477
because it was my best does not mean that it was any good; but I did my best, and I certainly increased very considerably the number of police houses available both in London and in the country. But what I did is unimportant. What is important is that the police authorities of the country were very much alive to that point, and have been doing their utmost to deal With it; and I think my noble friend Lord Craigton will agree that the same applies to Scotland, which was outside my jurisdiction.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? He has given—and I am very much obliged to him for giving it—a full, somewhat"round-the-wicket" answer on this point, but I asked him a very direct question: are the appropriate police authorities, including the Police Federation, satisfied with the housing accommodation available to-day, especially as regards married men?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope not.
EARL WINTERTON: That is my whole point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have never known anyone—any politician, or anyone—who has been satisfied with housing conditions, and I hope I never shall. I certainly am not; and no party in the country, and no person, will be until we have advanced a great deal further. Of course there is a great deal to be done. We all agree on that. All that we disagree on is the best method of doing it. But we agree that there is much to be done, and I should never dream of saying that people were satisfied. I was not satisfied, and I should hate the noble Earl to think that I was satisfied. I am only saying that I did my utmost to deal with the problem, and that the Home Office and the Scottish Home Department consider it one of their main problems, on which they are always working and on which they have done the utmost within their powers.
The noble Earl gave his reasons with regard to the lack of recruitment. This is a matter which will be considered by the Commission; and, therefore, I am not going to argue it. I will merely repeat something that I have said before. It is on record in both Houses, and it will be for the Commission to consider
478
it. I will not go beyond what I have said before. I have always thought that one of the difficulties was this: we are dealing with a situation in a modern world, with light industry fully employed, and with very pleasant five-day-week jobs available. Against that, you have the choice of a disciplined service; and that choice was in front of a group of people who, for a number of years, included many who had served during the war-time period in a disciplined service, and felt that they had served quite a long time. There is always this difference between a disciplined service and another, that it does not merely affect the man himself, but affects the girl he is going to marry, who knows that he will always be on call to the service and that they will never entirely be able to shape their own lives, even on the short range, because of that. I say only that these are the two difficulties which I have always said myself are existing difficulties. I say no more about them, because I am sure the Royal Commission will consider them.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, might I say to my noble friend—and this will be my last interruption—that he has not dealt at all with the point I made. Every argument that he has just used applies equally to the Army, and yet the Army has got recruits, because it has so greatly improved pay and emoluments. He does not seem to like that. I am making an attack not on the Home Secretary but on the tenure of his office. I want to know why the Home Secretary has not done for his Force what the Service Ministers have done for their Forces.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Earl will give me a little time, I will come to that point. Do not let him worry about interrupting me. I have given an undertaking to the House that I like interruptions, and I am waiting with the keenest expectation for some noble Lord to beat the record of the most reverend Primate, who interrupted me nine times in one speech.
To revert to the point, the noble Earl did not say that the total strength of the police force is greater than pre-war, which is the position. I am not accusing him of deliberately making a bad point. The success in the county forces has to be balanced against the difficulties which

479
we have found in the big cities; and we have also to consider the different kind of life—the absence of travel and so on—which the police have, as compared with the Services. The noble Earl has still to face the point I have made: that overall there are more policemen in the Force than before the war. If we take the latest figure, after National Service is changed, I think we have more men in the Service.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, has the proportion of police to population gone up? That is the only point that matters: the proportion of police to the population, which has greatly increased in the years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have not that figure in mind, nor has the noble Earl. I gather. After all, this is not in his Question. I am answering the best I can, and I do not have the figures of the comparative proportion. He cannot very well blame me, because I have had no notice of it. What I say is that the general figure shows an increase. I do not suppose that the noble Earl knows whether there are certain corps in the Army or certain parts of the Services in which there is a decrease—that is the comparative point. I do not know. I am trying to give him from memory and an accumulated store of information the best answer I can.
The next point is one on which I nearly despair of getting ad idem with the noble Earl, because we have had it before. The noble Earl will make an artificial dichotomy between deterrence and redemption. Whatever defects I have, I have had to study penal treatment very hard, and I believe that since 1895 we cannot make that dichotomy. The object of penal treatment is both deterrence and reformation, and a penal treatment which did not include both factors would be useless. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will acquit me of trying to avoid his argument. I simply think that his premise is so utterly false that I cannot get into the rare hypothetical sphere in which only his argument would apply.
The next point on which he attacked my right honourable friend was on the fact that he came to a different conclusion from the visiting justices. One thing
480
that would bring the administration of this country crashing down in ruins is if Ministers avoided doing their duty; and one of the duties which, rightly or wrongly, Parliament has placed on Ministers is to review other people's decisions. Once a Minister reviews a decision, he does his best to come to the right conclusion; and once a Minister starts looking over his shoulder to see whether that decision would please the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, he is bringing into the decision a factor which is not only wrong but dishonest and unworthy.
The next point the noble Earl made was about the multiplicity of offences which Parliament creates. It is a sad fact about Parliament that it has gone on producing Acts creating a multiplicity of offences ever since the Industrial Revolution. The noble Earl (I thought I knew, but I looked it up, because one always has to confirm one's thoughts) was a member of the Government from 1937 to the beginning of the war, for some three years. I was then a very young private Member of another place, and I regarded the noble Earl with a reverence which is almost as great as that I have for him now after so many years; but I do not remember any dramatic brake being put on the Parliamentary output of legislation involving new offences during the years when the noble Earl was in the Government. Therefore, I do not think there is anything in that point.
The noble Earl went on to deal with the Litter Act which was passed by your Lordships' House. I do not think that I ought to go into that matter. Then he dealt with the recent suggestion of the most reverend Primate. It would ill become me to assume any responsibility for any suggestion of the most reverend Primate in regard to the criminal law, and I am not going to do it now. Nor do I think that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has any ministerial or other responsibility for suggestions for increasing the number of criminal offences made from that quarter. The noble Lord then got on to the question of whether there were Parties in the State who encouraged criminal activity. I am not going to enter into the private war between him and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on that point. I am not even going to enter

481
the argument. I would say only that this is also something for which my right honourable friend has not so far been given responsibility.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend again. He seems to think that the whole of my speech was directed to an attack on the Home Secretary. Nothing of the sort. I was drawing attention to a number of matters which I hope will be considered by this Commission. I never suggested that the Home Secretary or the noble and learned Viscount should bring in a Bill on adultery. The noble and learned Viscount must not be so sensitive about his right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Earl will read his speech he will see that he began by saying that he was going to draw attention to a number of facts on which he disagrees with the Home Secretary. It was he who introduced that point. After he said that, he produced these points as making criticisms of my right honourable friend. That is how it will appear. I can tell the noble Earl that I do not care how he puts it now, but if someone attacks a right honourable colleague of mine in the way he did, he is going to get the answer from me; and the answer he has got from me is that when his attack is analysed there is nothing in it at all. That is my concluding remark in the fourth part of my speech.

THE TOURIST INDUSTRY
5.31 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE rose to call attention to the importance of tourists and visitors to Britain's economy; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour—that phrase is something which always surprises those of us who have come from another place—I will be as brief as I can be. I was the Member of Parliament for Morecambe and Lonsdale for some twenty years. As your Lordships may know, that is on the fringe of and partly in the English Lake District, and that accounts for my interest in the tourist trade. The tourist industry is also, of course, one of the most important methods whereby we in these Islands earn
482
overseas money. The tourist trade comes fifth among all our industries as an earner of money from overseas; and as an earner of dollars it comes second only to the motor trade, with whisky a bad third—or should I say a good third? It is estimated that in this year some £220 million of overseas money will be earned by tourism, and that includes some £70 million earned by British carriers—operators in ships and aeroplanes.
I need not say more, I am sure, to justify calling attention to the circumstances in which this important part of our life operates, but I would just add that in this year no fewer than 1·4 million people are expected to visit Britain from overseas. And why should they not? It is a beautiful country; it offers historical interest and scenery that is unparalleled; and, in my judgment, it offers good food and a warm welcome. Some people think that you can get good food only by going to the Continent. I do not think that that is true. I think there is no food better than British, food if it is well cooked. Although sometimes in the small hotels the vegetables may be cooked too long, and may be soggy instead of crisp, the standards here compare favourably with those in any part of Europe. We tend. I think, to praise foreign cooking because we like a change. But so does everyone like a change. But it is my experience, at any rate, that when I have been in Europe for two or three weeks there is nothing that I like better than to get back to English food. There are therefore many reasons for people visiting the United Kingdom, and we should rejoice that so many do and that they spend so much money with us.
But let us consider whether there are not some things we can do to encourage yet more to come, and to encourage those who do come to spend more money. It has been said that the catering industry has been gravely handicapped since the last war by the Catering Wages Act; and there is some truth in that. I know that within the catering industry there were conditions of work in kitchens and in boarding houses which were not good, and it was right that Parliament should make rules to better those conditions and to bring wages and conditions generally under some form of surveillance, if not of control. I therefore was one of those who praised the right

483
honourable gentleman Mr. Bevin and my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton for introducing into the House of Commons and into Parliament generally the Catering Wages Act. I do not want to devote much time to this point, except to observe that some feel that they did try in that Act to remedy evil, and did succeed, but that in doing so they also handicapped the operators and made life extremely difficult, especially for those who have small restaurants, small hotels or family businesses.
Well, time has passed, and last year, bearing in mind some of these difficulties, Parliament passed a new Act, the Terms and Conditions of Work Act, and some changes were made which I will not go into, except just to say that wages councils took the place of wages boards. With general consent this new piece of machinery was put into operation, and it is my hope and, I am sure, the hope of every friend of our tourist industry and our hotels and boarding houses that this Act will be more enlightened, and will, while protecting the workers, at the same time be sufficiently elastic to enable the industry the better to serve its customers, bearing in mind that the wealth of the industry, the profits that it makes and its development and success, are important factors in the standard of living that it can give to the people who work in it. I should like to ask the Minister who is going to reply if he can give us any information as to how the new Act is working, and if he can satisfy my hope that it is working better than the old one did, with more elasticity and satisfaction all round, both as regards the owners of hotels and boarding houses and those who work in them.
It is commonly said about Britain that our licensing laws are very much out of date: that they ought to be completely altered, and we should have conditions more nearly similar to those which are experienced on the Continent. It is said that we should be able to drink at any hour; that we should be able to drink without a meal wherever and whenever we like, and so on. I do not take the view that major alteration of the licensing laws is either necessary or desirable. I think that, on the whole, the persons concerned with providing refreshment through public houses, hotels and restaurants do a good job to meet the
484
demand of the British people in a satisfactory way, and that as time has allowed, and as they have been able to recover from the damage of the war, they have done well in serving their public. They could do better; and, of course, they are doing better. But I do not think it necessary that we should set up a Royal Corn-mission to consider a substantial or major change in the licensing laws. I personally do not want Britain to become Continental, in the sense that we hear about all the things that are said to be such good things to do on the Continent. They are, as I have said, mainly attractive to us because they are changes. But there is a good deal about the English way of life that is attractive to other people which tends to make them visit us here, which, of course, is the point of this debate this evening.
There is one plea I would make in regard to licensing reform. I suggest that, without increasing the number of hours during which the people can drink, some discretion should be given to the owner or tenant of a public house to be able to alter the hours, perhaps with due notice and even with permission, during which his hotel is open to suit the particular customers in the district or the circumstances at the time when he is serving them. That would seem to me to be good sense. I do not want to see drinking all day and all night, but if you are going to have a limitation, why not adjust it to the traffic and thus enable people to serve drink or to drink when it suits them? This freedom ought to apply at least to that extent.
I must turn swiftly to one or two other brief suggestions I have to make, because I know that many want to speak, and it is late. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can help this industry. He can, between now and the next Budget, consider the depreciation allowance which is permitted to hotels and for the equipment in the hotels. It is not as good as in some branches of industry, and I do not see why it should not be better. Capital allowances, or investment allowances, are permitted to some industries. Why not in the case of new hotels, which are very much needed? You may not find that the hotel industry wants more hotels. Most people like monopolies or near monopolies, and those who are already in business do not

485
want others to come in. Obviously, that is common sense—or, at least, it is the usual behaviour. But I am sure the nation needs more hotels, and we ought to encourage them, and this is one of the ways in which it can be done.
Lastly, so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, there is purchase tax—not a very important matter, but it acids up. An hotelier pays 25 per cent. purchase tax on a vacuum cleaner, 12½ per cent. on cutlery, and 5 per cent. on furniture. Why should he pay anything? These are the tools of his trade, and no one else who carries on a trade has to pay purchase tax on his tools. There is no new point here, because it has been brought up many times. I hope at last we may wear the Treasury down, and in the next Budget find that some concession upon this matter can be made.
Now a brief comment on shop hours. Here, again, I do not want to see an abandonment of the measure of surveillance over hours of work to which we have been accustomed in Britain. But I cannot see any reason why a little man who owns a shop should not work as long as he likes, especially in a seaside town or a seasonal town, where he can get his customer only at certain times of the year and at certain times of the day. Here is an example of the way in which, when you go abroad, you see how much more sensible the foreigners are. They come to serve you when you arrive. It does not matter what some Act of Parliament says about hours. The point is: when is the customer coming? As soon as the ship comes into harbour, all the shops are open and the lights go up, and you can buy what you like. Now why not? I do not want to make people work longer hours, but I do want to give them permission to open their shops when they can get the business. Surely, that is good for everyone—good for the nation, and good for our intake of foreign money.
It may be said that if you allow the little man who is prepared to work long or awkward hours with his family to open his shop, then you will compel others to open. I do not mind if they do or do not, so long as somebody is open to do the business. You must not miss your customers; the customer is always right, and if he wants something at nine or ten o'clock at night and someone is
486
willing to supply it, then let him supply it. I would observe that if larger shops have to open to maintain competition, the tendency towards self-service and mechanisation leads to fewer people being on duty than would otherwise be the case. I submit that there is a case for making the hours during which shopping may be done, especially in seaside and tourist towns, a little more elastic than it is at present.
Now a word on advertising. We provide £1 million or more to the Travel Association, which is our semi-public or semi-official vehicle for attending to the public relations of this industry. We provide £1 million or more for them to advertise abroad the idea of"Come to Britain." I want to ask the Minister whether we are, or are not, addressing these advertisements to the new potential visitors from overseas, or whether we are still addressing them to the readers of the glossy newspapers, under the illusion that the main people who come to see us from America, for example, are the rich who stay in Park Lane. This is not true. The number of people who came to see us was 1·4 million, and a great many of them were the wage earners from Detroit, the new middle-class, the type of people who would have voted for the Tories at the last Election, to the great surprise and disappointment of the gentlemen opposite. They are the new rich in the middle class with high wages who want to come to Britain. My question is: are we addressing our advertisements to them, or still only to the rich"posh" streets in New York? Is it not well worth while spending a little more on this advertising, which brings so much to our country in the way of people and money? In so far as we are proud of our country and we like the people to come and see us and meet us, does it not make for a friendlier feeling that people should come? I wonder whether a little more money spent upon the"Come to Britain" idea would be better than forcing British ideas down people's throats through the British Council. It may achieve the same purpose more easily.
Hotels here are governed in their employment of personnel by certain rules administered by the Ministry of Labour. One is designed to maintain employment among hotel workers and servants, and it says that you may not import a

487
foreigner as a servant, cook or head waiter so long as there is any local person available. But the local person may not be a skilled pastry cook and may not be a chef. He may be just an old sea cook for whom we have the greatest respect, but it will not please the visitors. I plead for more common sense in this matter. We shall make more money in the tourist business in the hotels and the restaurants if we can give them the skill which can be had by the importation of a very small number of specialist staff. I should be inclined to ease the rules, and the administration of them, governing that kind of employment.
Some of your Lordships may have read a book which was current last year called Parkinson's Law. You may recall how Mr. Parkinson indicates to directors, managing directors, heads of Government Departments and others how to conduct themselves. One of the chapters in this interesting book tells young executives how to get promotion. One of the ways is to choose the right time to send the managing director on a visit by air to Australia and, when he comes back, to praise his visit and say how valuable it is, and as soon as convenient to send him on another one to India. If you do this often enough it is morally certain he will die of exhaustion, and then there will be a vacancy for you. I have just returned from a trip to Australia and back by air—I hope my colleagues did not send me there with this in mind—and I can assure your Lordships it is really very exhausting indeed. If you go by the most luxurious and best method possible and stop on the ground for a night or two on the way, it is quite extraordinarily exhausting.
I make this point and relate it to my own experience because I want to conclude with a plea: if travelling these days is so unpleasant and uncomfortable relatively, by comparison with taking two or three weeks or months at sea, and yet it must be done, let us do all we can to make it as easy as possible on the ground. I went through fourteen flights on the way to Australia and back. That means landing in fourteen different airports. Some were comfortable; some made you feel at home; others wet e either hot or cold; all were noisy; the service in some was good and in others
488
bad. Let us at least make sure that in our airports and at our seaports the passenger is dealt with as quickly as possible and as easily as possible.
Let us ask ourselves whether passports are necessary. Have your Lordships considered what is a passport? Is it a document having any validity whatever? I question it. It is a request by some unknown official, not even the Foreign Secretary any more, to unknown persons to be polite to you in foreign lands. I am sure they never are more polite because of the passport. It does not do any good for the purpose for which it was intended. It is used as an additional bit of job-making by the people who issue it and the fellows who look at it. Nor, indeed, do I think there is any sanction for it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, was travelling with me on a recent journey, and he and I discussed—we did not come to any conclusion—whether there is any validity for it whatever, or any sanction for it. Suppose we were to say at Southampton,"We are not going to show passports; we claim the right as Englishmen to enter our country, and this bit of paper which asks foreigners to look after us has no validity whatsoever". I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply, why not scrap the lot? I do not believe we had them before the First World War, and maybe we have progressed sufficiently in the time between then and now, with rockets and the rest of it, at least to return to those good days when we did not have them.
Then there is the visa. I want to ask the noble Lord, in how many cases have we arranged to abolish visas with other countries, and in how many cases are we trying to arrange to abolish it? Do we positively try to get rid of these things, or just stick to them because we have had them so long? Lastly, a German coming into this country has to fill in five different forms and pay quite a few guineas to get in at all with a motor car, whereas he can get into at least nine countries in Europe with only two bits of paper to fill in. Travelling by air is very tiring when you are at the end of it, and you come down and are then bothered with so many performances, so much waiting at the desk for this or that. I may say that I, personally, have always found the Customs and the immigration officers most courteous and

489
kind; but however courteous and kind they are, you stand for perhaps a quarter of an hour or half an hour before you can get through with all this business, when you are already tired out. Let us try to make travelling more comfortable and agreeable to those who come to visit us. My plea in one sentence is: here is one of the most important industries earning very large sums of money for us to contribute towards our wealth and balance of payments: let us do everything that lies in our power, not only to make our visitors comfortable and happy but to get them here in the largest possible numbers and make their stay as enjoyable as possible. I beg to move for Papers.
5.55 p.m.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, there can be no quarrel with this Motion. There is certainly no doubt about the importance of tourism to the economy of Great Britain. It is of particular importance to Scotland, and it is vital to the Highlands. At the outset I should perhaps declare that in this matter I have loyalties on both sides of the Border, for I have the honour to be a member of the Scottish Tourist Board and thence of the Board of the British Travel and Holidays Association. Your Lordships in all parts, of the House will, I am sure, wish to pay tribute to the great services of Sir Arthur Morse in London and the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Rosebery, in Scotland, in the direction of these two bodies. These bodies have carefully and skilfully developed a great industry. I shall speak in more detail shortly about Scotland, but before I do so I would remind your Lordships that the annual receipts of over £200 million earned by this industry from overseas traffic have been won at an annual cost to the Treasury of only slightly over £1 million, or one-half of 1 per cent. Surely there can be few investments that give such a return.
If now I may speak more particularly about Scotland, it is important to appreciate just how valuable tourism is to that country. In 1953 Scotland received about 3½ million visitors. In 1958 the figure was over 4½ million, and during the present year is believed to have topped the 5 million mark—that is to say, almost exactly one visitor for every member of the population of the country. From overseas in 1951 Scot
490
land received 215,000 visitors; by 1958 that figure had been doubled; and this year it is over the half-million. One-third of the total visitors to Britain come to Scotland, and the annual value of Scotland's tourist trade now exceeds £60 million. 'There are no means of assessing exactly what the full potential will be, but with the increase in car ownership and in international travel it seems certain that the curve will continue to rise and that we can expect far more visitors in the next few years.
I suggest that in this context there are two questions to be considered: first, what brought these visitors to Scotland, and second, what can be done to ensure that more come in the future? The reasons why visitors come to Scotland are not hard to find. Apart from those who have family or ancestral reasons for visiting Scotland, I imagine that most of our visitors come because of its historic and romantic associations; because of its cultural activities, including the Edinburgh International Festival; because of the natural scenic attractions of the Highlands and of the West Coast, and because of the unrivalled sporting facilities.
Having been given these advantages, the Scottish hotel-keepers have, in recent years, not been slow to see the need to offer new forms of attraction. For example, they have been largely responsible for the development of pony-trekking; water ski-ing now leaves its wake in an increasing number of the lochs; and the strenuous efforts of Colonel Grant of Rothiemurchus and his fellow enthusiasts in the Cairngorms and in Glencoe are rapidly developing winter sports facilities. I would say, too, that our climate is often—and not only this last year—more equable than people are inclined to believe. It is not always suitable for idling on the beach, but it is good for touring and ideal for many forms of sport. The next reason why visitors have come to Scotland lies in the excellent publicity arrangements which have been made by the Scottish Tourist Board, of whose general success the increasing number of tourists must provide ample proof.
I now come to the third and, for the present purpose, most significant reason why more visitors are coming to Scotland. This lies in the activities of the

491
hotel industry itself. It is sometimes forgotten how many frustrations and reverses hotels have had to put up with since the war—the Draconic restrictions imposed by the Catering Wages Act, petrol restrictions, indifferent roads and so on. The hotel industry has done well to weather these storms, and I am glad to say that there is an appreciable amount of evidence of a new outlook on the part of that industry. Most hotel-keepers now realise that the market is growing each year and that some effort on their part is required if they are to attract the increased custom which is clearly within their reach.
Against this background the Secretary of State for Scotland last summer showed a nice sense of timing in arranging for a survey. It is a fair assumption that he accepted the view that an expansion of the tourist industry offered the best prospects of effecting a rapid improvement in the economy of the Highlands. He then arranged with the Chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board for a distinguished member of that Board, Mr. Hugh Fraser, to undertake a survey into the immediate possibilities of expansion. Mr. Fraser carried out his survey with all the expedition and commercial sense which might have been expected of him. Within three months the results were presented to, and unanimously approved by, the Tourist Board. This scheme has been warmly welcomed by the Secretary of State who has made available a grant to help it on its way. It is now being put into operation and, I suggest, provides the best answer to the second of the basic questions—namely, how can we attract more visitors to Scotland?
The substance of the scheme is probably familiar to your Lordships, and I wish to deal this evening with only a few of what appear to me to be its more intriguing aspects. It is unusual in that it is progressive, proceeding area by area throughout the Highlands. It has for this reason called for some patience and self-denial on the part of the areas which have not been selected for treatment in the initial stages. It has been gratifying to see that those areas have not denounced the scheme simply because it did not apply to them at the start. If it succeeds in the first two areas, which are Badenoch and East Sutherland, other areas will be keen
492
to emulate it. Within the experimental areas the plan has some original features. The keystone is the provision of more and better hotel accommodation. The scheme is that existing hoteliers will be invited to submit their own proposals for improving their hotel, guest house or other tourist accommodation. These suggestions will be vetted by a team of experts set up for each area, and if they are approved as suitable, it is hoped that a loan will be made available from a new finance corporation to be set up for the purpose. It is planned that the money for this finance corporation shall be found from private enterprise. This, in itself, is an innovation which deserves support. It is difficult to estimate the implications and possible repercussions of this development. If the plan succeeds, it will offer something for everybody, since not only the larger hotels but the small guest houses and the crofters who are prepared to provide tourist accommodation, will all come within its scope.
The Tourist Board are also to be commended for adopting a plan which gives the first chance to those who are already in the business and who deserve encouragement. But there will be no indiscriminate subsidies. This plan is an attempt at the difficult task of backing only winners, and it is to be hoped that it achieves the success it deserves. It also includes an imaginative scheme for improving the vista in the main streets of the experimental areas. The Tourist Board are arranging for the preparation of plans which will give a new look to these streets, by way of repainting and minor frontal alterations. This is doubtless worth doing for its own sake, but there is another and more practical reason: it is really an advanced form of window dressing. The expectation is that the tourist, when he sees the new lay-out, will stop and contribute to local revenue.
The plan has a number of other features which I will not develop in detail—for example, various devices to lengthen the holiday season; the encouragement of local tourist associations with the offer of a modest initial grant; an ambitious angling scheme, and, as an important means of raising standards, the organisation of conferences of Highland hotel-keepers. The

493
first of these will take place in Ross-shire, in March, and will allow hotel-keepers to discuss their problems and their difficulties. What then, does this plan aim to achieve? It recognises that tourism is an industry, treats it as such, and offers expert advice and guidance on the best forms of development. It is up to the hotel-keepers to make the best of this. With the help now offered they must provide better accommodation and better standards. Tourism is now highly competitive, and we must provide the kind of service which our visitors, both from home and abroad, are entitled to expect. I am sure that this can be done, and that tourism will make an even greater contribution to the prosperity of the Highlands.
So much, my Lords, for the plan to make the best use of what we have got. But how have we got it? Not through the action of the present generation—for of the only three hotels built in Great Britain in the past quarter of a century, one in London and one in the ruins of Coventry were not aimed at the tourist trade; and the other was built with foreign capital. We have this heritage upon which the tourist industry depends because there was a day when private enterprise, including the transport industry, could see that to build an hotel in Great Britain, and not alone in London, could be profitable. Since the war, while this country has been in this respect in the doldrums, new hotels aimed at the tourist trade have sprung up from Havana to Istanbul. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that it is their duty to find and sweep away the obstacles to, and actively to encourage, such developments here.
In that connection, my Lords, urgent consideration should be given to the taxation imposed on hotels. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has already said, it is surely unfair that purchase tax should be exacted on the tools of the trade. Secondly, conventional industry has the benefit of the investment allowance, and it is difficult to understand why this should be withheld from the hotel industry. They need it both for the buildings and for the necessary equipment with which to run them. It is no exaggeration to say that unless Her Majesty's Government can create conditions in which it will again be attractive to build hotels, not only, I
494
repeat, in London, but at key centres throughout Great Britain, we may well miss much of the growing volume of the tourist trade which new and economical ships and aircraft will produce; indeed, we may be by-passed to the benefit of other countries with a keener sense of the economic opportunities which lie ahead.
Finally, without commenting on Lord Fraser of Lonsdale's remarks regarding licensing laws, I must refer briefly to one adverse factor which particularly affects the tourist trade in Scotland—namely Scotland's licensing laws. I will not attempt to itemise the present anomalies, and I am glad that the Secretary of State has recently recognised the need for reform by appointing a Committee under the chairmanship of a distinguished Scottish Judge. Everyone connected with the tourist industry sees in the setting up of this Committee the first glimmer of licensing light for a very long time. The Scottish Tourist Board will be submitting evidence to Lord Guest's Committee, and, without anticipating this, there are a few basic principles which I can commend with some confidence.
First, the tourist is surely entitled to obtain refreshment at all reasonable hours in recognised hotels and restaurants; secondly, any restriction should be supported by a logical justification—it should be capable of being explained in simple terms, and the tourists should know why particular closing hours have been imposed. I say, in passing, that while some form of restriction may be needed on grounds of public order, undue rigidity tends to lead to more, rather than less, drunkenness, as evidenced by experience of prohibition in the United States and the"six o'clock swill" in Australia. Thirdly, to avoid irritation, the law so far as it affects hotels and restaurants should be uniform throughout Scotland. Fourthly, it is essential that the law should make possible reasonable security of tenure for licensed premises and should not discourage desirable capital investment in the tourist industry.
I will not at this stage trouble your Lordships with the practical application of these principles, which involve many complex issues, but I should like to advance this general proposition. Her Majesty's Government have rightly

495
declared themselves in favour of expanding the tourist industry. At present the greater freedom which other countries, particularly in Europe, can offer in this matter gives them a definite advantage over Scotland. It is time to put this right, and in supporting the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, I would express the hope that your Lordships will bear these points in mind when the time comes for the review of the licensing laws of Scotland.
6.11 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, on behalf of Scotland I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for his helpful, informative and constructive speech, which will be most carefully studied and is going to be of great value to us. I will try to answer all the points he has made, except that which refers to taxation, with which my noble friend will deal in winding up.
The noble Lord drew attention to the special importance of the tourist industry in Scotland, to the various steps being taken by that very active and sturdily independent body (if I may say so) the Scottish Tourist Board, and to the action they are taking to publicise the notable attractions Scotland has to offer tourists. I am happy to join him in paying tribute to the success which has attended the efforts of the Board in the past year. The noble Lord rightly drew attention to the special campaign in the Highlands which is being carried out under the direction of Mr. Hugh Fraser. As the noble Lord said, that is in many ways a unique development. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was delighted when, as a result of consultations with the Board, Mr. Fraser undertook the task. We must admire the speed with which he has acted and the imaginative and practical nature of the proposals that he put forward. The campaign is already under way and I am sure your Lordships have listened with great interest to my noble friend's account of the various aspects of the scheme.
Tourism is fast becoming a highly competitive industry, and the Highlands, as elsewhere, are now increasingly accessible to a more widely-travelled type of visitor, as was said by the noble Lord who opened this debate, a type of visitor who
496
has come to expect a certain minimum standard of accommodation wherever he goes. If the Highlands are to make the most of their very great natural attractions, accommodation must be improved and arrangements made to ensure that the area's unrivalled natural assets are made to contribute their fullest part in the development of the industry. That means, of course, first that there must be something for the visitors to do when they arrive, either for an overnight stay or for longer—fishing, boating, walking, climbing and entertainment in the evenings. Each area has its particular possibilities. There must be a clean and comfortable bed (that goes without saying) and a hot bath, too; and there must be something good to eat and drink.
Nowhere in the world can one eat better beef, herring and white fish than in Scotland; and there must be some Scottish fare too—black puddings with the breakfast bacon, real Scots porridge, oatcakes, shortbread and haggis. And where in the world does Scotch whisky taste better than with not too much of its native water? Only if these things are done and the maximum publicity given to the distinctive attractions that the Highlands have to offer can the full benefit be gained.
Fears have sometimes been expressed that tourism might have an adverse effect on the Highlands and in some respects detract from their distinctive character. Under the Tourist Board's programme, however, I can see little risk of this happening, since the entire scheme depends on the basis, first, of properly co-ordinated development at local level, and, secondly, on a real effort to concentrate on quality by offering to the tourist all that is best and most distinctive in the way of Highland attractions and products. It is sometimes insufficiently recognised that the tourist industry, far from being in conflict with, is essentially complementary to, the basic industries of the area. Tourism can provide an additional outlet for the products of local agricultural and fishing industries, and offers additional valuable markets for the craft products of the area. Most of the money spent comes back again to the locality.
Though I have been spending some time on the Highlands, and my noble friend dealt almost exclusively with the

497
Highlands, I should not like it to be thought that other parts of Scotland, which in their own way are equally attractive to visitors, are being neglected. Many of these are already established holiday centres, but equally they cannot afford to rest on their laurels. The Scottish Tourist Board have in hand further plans to publish their attractions in the coming season, and early next year a travelling exhibition publicising the attractions of a wide variety of Scottish centres is to visit towns in the North of England. Steps are afoot to form a tourist development association in the Borders area, and work is in hand on a national handbook on golfing holidays, and on a booklet on early season holidays in Scotland. These are no more than examples, but they give some indication of the range of effort designed to publicise and develop our tourist attractions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has reminded us, we have made good progress, but we have still very much to do and to learn. But in this matter of tourism we in Scotland are in the mood to take advice, to help ourselves, and to get on with the job; and Her Majesty's Government applaud and support the in valuable work of the Scottish Tourist Board and of the many Scottish tourist development associations.
6.18 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I ask your Lordships now to journey with me South for a few minutes across the Border. Before doing so I must declare an interest, in that I am chairman of a travel agency and also chair-main of a company which runs motor-coach tours throughout the season to all parts of Europe. It is interesting to me, now a at I am myself in the trade, to compare the views I now hold with those with which I have wearied your Lordships in the last fifteen years during which I have been addressing you on this subject. I am happy to find that those views: are largely the same. The point which has struck me most in the course of my brief knowledge, technically, of the industry, has been the large number of people who are going abroad from these shores for the first time. Last year a high proportion of the customers who were good enough to favour my company were travelling abroad for the first time. I believe that my noble friend
498
Lord Gifford, who is also in the trade, would bear with me when I say that they behave, on the whole, remarkably well and are good ambassadors for this country.
LORD GIFFORD: Hear, hear!
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, made our mouths water with his description of Scottish fare, and I would go with him nearly the whole way, with the exception of that obscene bag of rubbish they call haggis. But this cuts both ways, because our own people become so fond of native fare that they become embarrassingly choosey about the fare the foreigners give them; and it is my experience that there are still far too many British travellers abroad who, when offered Sole Veronique and Pouilly Fuissé'52, stick to kippers and Double Diamond if they can.
The point I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice is this: if Mr"Rab" Butler—who has been so sadly maligned this afternoon—is right, and if our standard of living is going to be doubled within the next 25 years, then more tourists will go abroad every year who have not been before; and, my Lords, just as what goes up must come down, so what goes out must come home. Here we are sending more and more tourists every year abroad; here we are putting forward every possible inducement to bring more and more foreign tourists to this country. But are we quite certain that this paradox is not going to arise: will not some of our essential services in the near future become saturated? I believe that there is a real risk that some of the services, without which the tourist trade cannot operate, are in danger of being saturated in the near future unless we take definite action soon.
Some are well known to your Lordships. Dover Harbour, London Airport and the hotel industry are the three that come to my mind. Dover Harbour, which I believe is one of the busiest passenger ports in the world, is nearly saturated now; and if more tourists are coming to the country over the short Channel route the conditions in the port in the near future will become chaotic, despite all the endeavours of Sir Brian Robertson and his good team there to put things to rights. So will London Airport become saturated during the holiday

499
season—it very nearly is now—unless the progress in extending that airport is pressed on with urgently. So it will be with the hotels. My noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale has made this point, and we have discussed it in your Lordships' House on many occasions.
I am not certain that I quite agreed with him when he made the point about monopolies, of hoteliers liking a monopoly. It is quite true that monopolies are like babies: we are all against them until we have got one of our own. But in this case I think he was a little unfair. But I think a serious situation will arise in the near future. It will arise not only in London, because so many tourists coming from abroad want to go to the tourist areas—the Lake District, the Shakespeare Country, the West Country—and cannot get into any hotels during the tourist season because hoteliers naturally will not take them for three or four days and insist they stay a week or a fortnight. So there are certain things here which I have ventured to enumerate to your Lordships which are beyond the powers of the trade to put right for themselves. It is in these things that the trade will require help from Her Majesty's Government. We are not asking for feather-bedding or for any special preference; but I do ask the Government, who we know have these matters well in mind and have taken some necessary action, to press on and prevent the ridiculous paradox of trying to attract more tourists to a country which will not be able to accommodate them.
The difficulty is, of course, that the trade is, in a way, a very diverse trade with a multitude of ramifications; and the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and other noble Lords who will take this same point, have drawn attention to the number of legislative provisions which can accidentally and coincidentally militate against the industry. There are half-a-dozen provisions on the Statute Book which were never intended, of course, to do damage to the tourist industry but which do that damage in isolation. We welcome strongly and thank the Government for the relaxation of the burdens put upon us until quite recently by the currency restrictions; although it may interest your Lordships to know that the £100 will affect remarkably few tourists going abroad. The average amount taken
500
by the tourists with whom I am connected is more like £60 than £100. It will, however, have one repercussion which is showing itself already. Whereas in the past the Englishman has been able to plead poverty and has received a certain amount of sympathy from the tourist industry abroad, he will find, now that there are no restrictions upon him, that he will have to pay a good deal more and will be asked to tip a good deal more liberally.
My noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale mentioned the abolition of passports. That is the only other point where I think I disagree with him. I am not certain that the case against the passport is as strong as the case for retaining it. I would ask your Lordships not to jump to the conclusion too quickly that a passport is necessarily a bad thing. It certainly is a very valuable thing when you have lost it. I left a passport in Paris two years ago; it was sent on after me by registered post to the South of France, and I went to collect it at the local post office. It was there with my name on it. I was then asked to produce a passport by way of identity in order to claim my package. I saw a long vista of bureaucratic tragedy heading in front of me. I explained that I could not produce it. It was in the package, and I would be grateful if the postman would open it in order to see. I told him my passport was inside."Ah!", he said,"but you cannot prove it without your passport." It was at this moment that the postmistress said, rather indignantly,"You men! Section 183 of some local provision says that if the postal packet becomes accidentally opened it should be resealed in the presence of the consignee." She took the parcel and hurled it smartly to the corner where it burst open. And I received my passport, and went to the Rue Gambetta for a well deserved fin à Peau. I admit that unless you have to have your passport it does not matter if you lose it. But I would sound this note of warning: that there are many advantages in having a passport which we should consider before we finally decide to abolish it.
I heartily agreed with my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale when he enumerated the various points which bear hardly upon the tourist industry—purchase tax, purchase tax on the tools of the hotelier, the Catering Wages Act,

501
the Shops Act, licensing laws and betting laws. We used to hear a lot about that old lady Mrs. Grundy. We do not hear so much about her now, but she is still pretty active, despite two smart defeats over the common informer and drinks at airports. They are dealing now in another place with the betting laws, so I will Dot say anything more about that and will reserve my observations for the time when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House. But there is one aspect there which affects the tourist trade and that is the possibility of operating a casino; and if it is decided by Parliament that a casino should become legal, it should become properly legal and not half legal. We do not want to have further restrictions, anomalies and absurdities circling round this point.
The noble Lord mentioned the licensing laws, and here I would strongly support the plea he has put forward. Of course it would be a problem—it always has been—to attempt to amend the licensing laws in any respect. But, as I have said before and as I say again, what is the good of having a majority of 100 in another place if you cannot have a thumping good row now and again? There has been a great deal to do with the licensing laws in an attempt to get uniformity where none is needed or called for. Of course my noble friend, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, is quite right when he says that people coming to this country as tourists do not expect to find an imitation Monte Carlo or a bogus Las Vegas. Tourists do not come to Cleckheaton for caviare or chemin de fer; nor do they expect the Kettering Urban District Council to bring on the dancing girls. But they do expect to get a glass of beer in Leicester Square after going to the cinema on Saturday night, and they have every right to expect it.
So I would beg the Government not to venture upon any vast reform of the whole of the licensing laws, but merely to consider whether those areas particularly attractive to the tourist are not entitled to some different treatment, some relaxation, which differs from places where no tourist is every likely to visit. And if the Government are worried, as I am sure they are, about the mushroom growth of undesirable and faintly immoral clubs in London and other provincial cities, I would beg them to realise that modifying the licens
502
ing laws for reputable clubs and pubs helps to do away with the need for the disreputable clubs alongside of them. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord who is to reply if he will beg his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade not to extend any legislation which reacts against the tourist trade.
We do not ask to be relieved of some burden merely so that it may be put upon other people. We are perfectly prepared to pay our share of taxation and to carry our fair burden, but we do feel that, quite by accident and fortuitously, a large number of legislative provisions impinge upon this industry to its detriment. I have enumerated them; and I would ask the President of the Board of Trade, who I know has the interest of the tourist trade well at heart, to go through all the legislation at present proceeding through Parliament and to consider future legislation, with a view to removing a number of irksome and tiresome and unnecessary burdens which the tourist trade has to bear. And, if the noble Lord, Lord Mills, or the President of the Board of Trade want any more suggestions, I think they know where they can get them.
6.31 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should first of all like to say how much I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, into the travel trade. He has saved me an embarrassment from which I have suffered for more than ten years with innumerable speeches starting,"My Lord, Ladies and Gentlemen". Thank heavens it is now going to be the more anonymous,"My Lords".
Lord Fraser of Lonsdale and other speakers have given your Lordships the figures for the tourist business, so I am not going to repeat them, except to say that £200 million for 1958 is indeed a formidable figure. One thing I should like to say about the remarks of Lord Fraser of Lonsdale is that he commented about our restaurants and said, quite rightly, that we could get very good British food. I think the improvement in the standard of food in the restaurants in our larger cities and in the roadhouses throughout the country has been quite remarkable during the past three or four years. If you wish, you can get almost any kind of food—and good food—in this city: Italian, French, or any other

503
sort, as well as, of course, our good British roasts, and so forth. On the whole, I believe that those who wish to do so can feed better in this country than anywhere else.
I should like to say something this afternoon about people outside the tourist industry, because I believe that everyone in this country has a duty to show, and can do a great deal of good by showing, a friendly spirit towards our visitors from overseas. We in this House have particular opportunities, because I know how very much a visit to hear our debates is appreciated. I happened to be outside New Palace Yard last year when I saw a party of American students. I asked them if they would like to come in, and they did. They all wrote me letters afterwards, and their visit here was undoubtedly the highlight of their trip.
The other thing that I think is important is that the visitor here should feel that he gets a square deal—that they are not"gipped", as the Americans say. I think that, on the whole, we have a very good record in this respect. I should like to relate a very small incident, where the person responsible had no idea of the lasting effect it had. I went with two very wealthy Americans to a West End restaurant, and when we were leaving the lady from the cloakroom brought out my wife's coat and the other lady's coat. My wife tipped her, and when the American lady went to tip her as well the cloakroom attendant said,"Oh, no, madam; the other lady has tipped me".
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Was that in Scotland?
LORD GIFFORD: No; in London. That lady has gone back to America, and that incident has been spoken of many times. I think that from time to time we are all, perhaps, irritated by tourists—when we are irritated we usually call them"trippers"—particularly if they over-run our pet beach or jam the roads which we use in the course of our ordinary business. But I think that we must try to curb our impatience, and remember that they are real money-spinners. It is an extraordinary thing, I feel, that no one will admit to being a tourist or a tripper. I have often seen
504
people—my own friends—who have gone to visit Wells or Salisbury Cathedral and have then said,"We have quite enjoyed the visit, but the place was full of trippers"—quite forgetting that they were trippers themselves. So much for the general public.
I should like now to say something about the way in which the business community benefits from tourism. There are the obvious people—the travel agents, the hoteliers, the air lines, the shipping lines, the railways, the coach operators, and so on. In addition, over 20,000 cars were bought by visitors from overseas last year, and, of course, the visitors spend large sums of money on car hire. Then, all the arts benefit: the opera, ballet, music, theatres; the nightclubs, organised sport, banks—even hairdressers. The hairdressers derive a tremendous lot of money from overseas visitors. Insurance companies also benefit, as do the printers, because tickets and brochures are printed by them for the benefit of the tourist industry. The British Travel and Holidays Association, who have always taken great trouble to get together facts about the tourist industry, have estimated that more than one million men and women in this country, or a total of 5 per cent. of the working population, are employed in industries which do some work for the tourist industry.
Another section of the community which benefits greatly from tourists is the retail store. In this connection, I should like to say something about the Personal Exports Scheme. It is interesting to note that, although the figures for visitors to this country are steadily rising, from a million and a quarter last year to (it is estimated) 1,400,000 this year, the use of the Personal Exports Scheme has declined by 13 per cent. My Lords, there is no doubt that visitors do not like this scheme. It is too cumbersome, and I think they distrust it. They feel that the gift which they have bought probably will not arrive at the port or the airport. Then, of course, nobody likes a lot of parcels thrown at him just as he is getting into an aeroplane, or boarding a steamer. I believe that a simpler scheme could be devised: that the visitor could be required simply to show his passport and to sign a declaration that he would export his

505
purchase and not give it away in this country. There might be some slight risk of abuse, but I believe that that risk could be taken, and that a simpler scheme would greatly increase the sales to visitors.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the question of the shortage of hotels, a subject al which I have often spoken in this House, though I do not propose to pursue it further to-day. I was impressed with what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, told us about the development of the finance corporation in Scotland, and I hope that before long something similar will be formed South of the Border. But I do feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and everybody else, must, between now and the next Budget, consider ways in which investment in new hotels and in the modernising of hotels can become more attractive. I will not repeat the various ways—removal of the purchase tax on equipment, investment allowances, and so forth. As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has said, only three modern hotels have been built in Britain since the war, whereas in Italy the number, I believe, runs into three figures. There is something wrong there.
Three weeks ago, in this House, I initiated a Motion on the spreading of holidays. I am not going to weary your Lordships by enlarging on that again, although it is an essential part of coping with the increasing number of visitors. Some of your Lordships may remember that one of the things I advocated was the postponement of the August Bank Holiday until the last week in August. Since my Motion, the Evening Standard have started a competition, asking readers whether they were for or against an alteration of the Bank Holiday, and for their reasons. I was pleased to find that no less than 71 per cent. of the hundreds who entered the competition were in favour of postponing Bank Holiday to the last week in August. Something is being done to cope with this increasing flow of tourists, but not half enough. I only hope that the Government will realise the urgency of action, otherwise this golden stream will by-pass this country and flow to the Continent.
6.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, in his concluding remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said that something was
506
being done to increase the tourist traffic, but not half enough. With that view I wholeheartedly agree. On many occasions in your Lordships' House in the last six years I have urged the introduction of small, low-value pictorial stamps as a means of (in the words of my Question on the Order Paper)
"pontraying to the world some of the scenic beauties and historic monuments of the British Isles."
To-day I propose to urge the introduction of small low-value pictorial stamps specifically as a means of assisting the tourist traffic, which is the subject of the noble Lord's Motion. On various occasions, I have been asked what support I have for the introduction of small low-value pictorial stamps in order to assist the tourist traffic. In this respect, I would quote to your Lordships from a leading article in the Daily Telegraph of February 10, 1955, which said:
"Small low-value pictorial stamps would help our tourist trade, would give a fillip to collectors and would give pleasure to a great number of ordinary people."
I have support, too, from most authoritative quarters—that is, from the tourist organisations of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, rightly paid tribute to Sir Arthur Morse, the chairman of the British Tourist and Holidays Association. To that I should like to add a word of tribute to Mr. Bridges, the Director General of the Association, who, in the course of the many years during which he has been Director General, has done a truly magnificent job. On May 21, 1955, Mr. Bridges replied to a letter which I had sent him relating to questions which 1 had addressed to the Government in your Lordships' House on the matter of small, low-value pictorial stamps. He wrote:
"Replying to your letter of the 19th, we have constantly stressed the value of small low-value pictorial stamps to the tourist trade; and we reject the plea that in the smaller stamps it is not possible to combine the Queen's Head with an attractive picture. Other countries can do it—and if they can do it, then of course we can, too."
And, of course, we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred to the Scottish Tourist Board, of which he is a prominent member, and to the views of that Board on the general tourist trade. I have received constant support from the Scottish Tourist Board, and last week, with this debate in view,

507
I wrote to the Manager and Secretary, Mr. W. A. Nicholson, who, like Mr. Bridges, has done a magnificent job during the years in which he has been secretary. I asked him whether the Board still supported my views with regard to the introduction of small, low-value pictorial stamps (I am sorry to say it so often; but saying it often drives it home), a support which he and his Board have expressed for the last six years. And from Mr. Nicholson I had this letter, dated December 10, 1959, which I am permitted to quote:
"… my Board is strongly behind you in your efforts to secure increased publicity for Britain and for Scotland through the production of pictorial stamps.
"The increase in tourist traffic to Scotland this year has been quite remarkable. I have not yet got all the figures in for this year, but it is quite clear now that we shall top five million visitors to Scotland this year, an increase of at least a quarter of a million compared with 1958. There has been a record number of overseas visitors, of whom we expect approximately 500,000 will have been in Scotland this year. The need for increased publicity has never been greater if we are to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities open to us to expand our tourist industry, which can be of substantial economic value to all Britain.
"I wish you all success in your continued campaign."
Almost every country in the world produces these pictorials stamps, of low value as well as of high value, and of various sizes. They tell of the country's history, industries, scenic beauties and historic monuments, and they bring tourists to their shores. There is no technical difficulty in the way of the Postmaster General issuing these stamps, and if there were any preliminary administrative difficulties these could well be solved. So far as the tourist traffic is concerned, I suggest that these small pictorial stamps would be ambassadors of this country to millions of people abroad. The reason why stamps carry a design at: all is to convey a message to both sender and recipient, and the message from this country should not be inferior to that of any other country. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord who is replying to this debate will convey to the -new Postmaster General (who after all has had only a couple of months in his office and will surely be reviewing this matter of small pictorials in relation to tourist traffic)
508
the request that he should seriously consider the suggestion I put forward to-night. That is, that in order to increase tourist traffic in this country, and to bring greater revenue to the country, he should review the situation, having in mind the introduction of the small low-value pictorial stamps which I propose.
6.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I should like to make one or two brief observations on the question of increasing the trade of tourists to this country. The first thing is that this debate sounds rather like a Scottish success, as indeed, up to a point, it is. But that is no reason for complacency. The tourist whom I think one ought to try to attract is the chap who brings his car over and drives around on our, I am afraid, already congested roads—although not so much so in Scotland. In order to attract him I suggest that approaches should be made to one of the four major petrol suppliers to print on the backs of their bills the equivalent in litres and such things of gallons and pints of oil and in kilogrammes per square centimetre for tyre pressure and such things. It would be quite simple to print that on the back of the bill, and it would be a good advertisement for one brand of petrol. If you did it with one, the other three would follow, and it would be of great interest to tourists. Any small thing of that sort makes the tourist go home and say:"What a fine place that is! How the people there try to help you out with small difficulties which you encounter!" That, as I say, would be a simple thing, and its great merit is that it would cost the Government nothing to back the idea.
Another thing is that in touring in the spring this year the only difficulty I had was in getting my car out of this country and into this country. Everywhere else I went, all over Europe, all they required was the green insurance card. Surely to goodness we could reciprocate—it may have been done already; I do not know—and make the only document necessary in this country the green insurance card which is common to all those European countries. I think that ought to be taken up. The third point is this. Advertising tourist attractions in England may be simple, but

509
surely it would be better policy to advertise them in Scandinavia and Europe generally. When one talks of the saturation of the entry ports into this counttry, I would draw attention to the fact that the cost of shipping a car from Norway to Newcastle is approximately the same as for crossing the Channel. That port is not saturated; nor is Leith; nor is Aberdeen. When all is said and done, when you get to Aberdeen you can turn right or left, and go north or south; but if you get to Dover you have to go north. I put that as some argument in favour of thinking a little wider, if possibly on a smaller scale.
So far as the passport difficulties mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mancroft are concerned, I was wiser than he. I lost my passport in Paris. I came back to England, and I succeeded quite easily in getting through all the formalities by producing my driving licence. I think that may illustrate the difference of outlook, and perhaps the importance—or otherwise—of passports. Anyway, I mention it in passing. The only other thing I have to say is that one of the greatest industries in the Highlands in Scotland, and an indigenous industry, is the tourist industry. Relatively speaking, it has a far greater importance and significance to the Scotsman than it has to the more fortunate districts in England, which are already heavily industrialised and can turn to ether methods of making their living. There are large areas in Scotland where agriculture, forestry and tourism are the only industries available.
6.55 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this has been a highly delightful debate. Only one jarring note did I detect all the way through, and that came from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who wants to inflict upon the tourist who goes to Scotland the Scottish black pudding. Lover of Scotland though I am, I always think the haggis is the concoction of the devil: but black pudding as an incentive to Scotland—never! However, I want to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in staying at this late hour. For a Minister who does not have to be there to still be sitting on the Front Bench is most unusual.
LORD CRAIGTON: If the noble Lord will excuse me for interrupting, I should
510
be pleased to send him one for. Christmas, and I am sure he will enjoy it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I must consider that offer. I do not know that I should accept it. Perhaps there is some foul design about it. However, this has been, as it usually is, the annual Scottish advertising session. I do not blame them, because, as I say, I am a great lover of Scotland. I think it is the most delightful touring country in the world, and I was interested in the scheme expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. I should like to deal first of all with the Scottish aspect of this matter. I am going to make a few suggestions to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and to the noble Lord the Secretary of State, on the ways in which I think Scotland falls down now, and may fall down later on.
I think it was the noble Lord who opened this debate who said that the motor car had made Scotland. But what Scotland must guard against is that the motor car does not ruin it. In some places in the most delightful parts of the Western Highlands, where I went in the best summer Scotland has ever had—and, I will hazard a guess, is ever likely to have—I was appalled: I have never seen such filth. I travelled to the Kyle of Lochalsh, and that part of the Western part of Scotland is scenery at its most grand. I came down the Road to the Isles—I expect both the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, know it well—into that delightful hamlet of the Kyle of Lochalsh; and I have never seen such a rubbishy and filth-laden place in my life. I have never seen so many empty cigarette cartons. The noble Lord will know that there they have the telephone exchange for the Isle of Skye, and I saw broken pieces of instruments at the feet of poles that had been left by the Post Office. What effect does that have upon the tourist? Surely there is somebody even in those remote parts of Scotland who can do something to enforce the Litter Act. On the road over the Pass of Glencoe one had only to stop a motor car and look over one of the stone walls to see the filth of months. To me that is not attractive, and it is not attractive to visitors. If the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and his Scottish Tourist Board can do anything to prevent one of the most delightful parts of Scotland from

511
being made so unattractive, he will earn the respect of all lovers of Scotland.
It is true of Scottish hotels, as it is true of English hotels, that the average standard is very low. But what I think is wrong—and this applies to both—is that they repel, not attract, the real tourist. When I went to Scotland—I will not mention the name of the town in which this happened because it would be unfair—I wanted to stay two nights on my way up to Skye and the well-known Scottish watering resort on the West coast. I think I wrote to an hotel about eight weeks before-hand, and they would not have me. They had no room for anybody who wanted to stay only two nights. I have heard that from foreign tourists many times. Admittedly this was in June and July, but you cannot get into one of these hotels unless you are a long-term visitor of a week or over. Now that is bad.
While I am referring particularly to Scotland—perhaps I shall get into hot water for saying this—I always think that the best way to see the Isle of Skye is never to go there but to see it from the sea. I think it is the most magnificent part of the West Highlands and the Islands, right out to the Outer Hebrides. Yet when I was there the one ship, the"Dear Lochinvar," which is 50 years old and belongs to MacBrayne's, broke down, and there was not another one. Surely, that is not an incentive for tourists. These are some of the things that I think the Scottish Tourist Board should look at.
The average hotel, both in Scotland and in England, must make up their minds for whom they are going to cater. I have had some unfortunate experiences of booking hotel accommodation about two months before I want to arrive. I will recite one or two as examples. When I have arrived it has been quite obvious to me they have not reserved the accommodation because I was only a tourist. Two hotels I wanted to stay at were jam-packed full of conference delegates. When I went to the delightful lady at the reception and said who I was, and that my accommodation had been reserved, it was quite obvious that no reservation had been made. I had to have some kind of room that night, but what it was going to be she did not know.
512
Eventually she found one. I must admit that I arrived very late—it was eight o'clock at night. I said to her,"I'll have a bath, and then I'll have a drink. Will you please tell the head waiter I shall be down to dinner at about a quarter to nine?" She said to me, in a most haughty tone of voice,"The head waiter desires all guests to have finished their dinner by eight-thirty." I said that I thought the head waiter might be on service for me, and not me for the head waiter. I had the worst service at that four-star hotel. I had a filthy room, with a cracked basin and mirror, and I paid the highest possible price at that time.
I wanted some tea at a big hotel in Scotland, and at four o'clock one Sunday afternoon I walked into a huge lounge with 50 tables, all set out, and every one with a"Reserved" ticket on it. I said to the head waitress,"Can I have some tea?" She said,"Are you from the coach?" I replied,"No"."Oh", she said,"I do not think you can". I said,"Cannot I sit down at one of these tables?", and she replied,"Oh, no, these are for the coach parties". I do not object to coach parties, but the hotels must make up their minds about whether they are going to cater for the tourist. And they are not catering for the tourist now. I could not get a cup of tea in that town that afternoon, because there was no other place open.
These are things that count. I have heard it from Americans. They go with their luggage, and unless they have got something booked by the travel agency they get very short shrift. To me that is something that folk who are responsible for the tourist traffic must look into very seriously. They must make up their minds. I do not mind paying the best possible price if I get the best possible service. But what an ordinary tourist has to do is to pay the best possible price to get the low-price service given to conference people. I cannot understand why anyone wants to go to conferences—I think they are hateful things—but that is an English and a Scottish habit.
Let me say quite frankly—and I hope noble Lords will not think I am biased—that by far the best hotels, with the highest standard both in Scotland and in this country in the Provinces, are the

513
British Transport Commission hotels. Admittedly they charge the highest price. But they give the best service, and there is a sufficient volume of tourist business in this country to-day of people who can afford and do not mind paying the best possible price, but who expect the best possible service. But I think the average hotel is a very second-class affair.
The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who opened this debate, mentioned the Lake District. I passed through the Lake District this summer. I was fortunate. I have been to the Lake District nine times in my life, and this was the first time I could see across Lake Windermere. I spent two of the most lovely days there, with lovely weather, but the four-star hotel I stayed at was a disgrace. The floor had never been swept from the previous occupant, the hair combings were still on the floor, and I was asked to pay, in a four-star hotel, the highest possible price.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, that was not in Morecambe or Lonsdale.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, it was not, but I did not know that Morecambe or Lonsdale were in the Lake District.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Yes, they are.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Well, I did not know that. Let us look at these things. Do not let us think that everything is good. It should not be a difficult job to improve the hotel service. After all, Mr. Hugh Fraser, whom I know very well, has some experience of running hotels as well as other things. If you want to attract people, first of all have your shop window clean and tidy. Do not have bits of broken-down motor vehicles along the verges of your roads, and see that, when you get your hotels, they offer the best possible service and offer that service to tourists. Then I think the tourist industry in this country will prosper.
7.10 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, for putting down such a mainly cheerful but quite unseasonable subject for
514
debate. Within 100 hours of the shortest day of the year, he has enabled us to discuss what might be regarded mainly as a summer industry, and this year as a sunshine industry. The noble Lord has pointed out the economic benefits at present, and in the future the prospective benefits, and they are most important to this country. But I should not like us to forget the social benefits of this great industry, the opportunity it gives us of meeting people of other nations and appreciating their qualities. I am sure that the mixing of peoples in this way can do nothing but good.
I would also remark that this is an expanding industry; it is an industry with an enormous future before it. People are travelling who never travelled before, and that is growing; and I would immediately say that we ought in every possible way take advantage of that situation. It is true that this year the number of visitors, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, reminded us, is likely to approach 1,400,000, spending somewhere about £150 million, in addition to some £65 million earned by carriers bringing them here and taking them back. Those figures compare with about 400,000 visitors in 1947, spending then £20 million; and even before the war the number of visitors to the United Kingdom never reached half a million. In looking at these figures I should like just to refer to the year 1950–51, when there was an impressive leap in earnings from £61 million to £75 million, no doubt aided by the Festival of Britain, for which a large share of credit must go to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. I wish he had been here to hear how we appreciate what he did for the tourist traffic in that bold conception of his.
The success of our tourist traffic—and it is a success—is in a large measure due in recent years to the existence of the British Travel and Holidays Association, which was formed in 1950 and is operating under the very able chairmanship of Sir Arthur Morse. This work is sponsored not only by private individuals and associations but by the Board of Trade; and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Boards are closely associated with it and serve on its Council. Four-fifths of its income is derived from a Government grant of £1,050,000, and that grant in aid was increased to

515
that figure only recently by an addition of a quarter of a million pounds. As one noble Lord pointed out, that is a very small amount to pay for the value we get from it.
I would point out to your Lordships the immense complexity of this industry, which is associated with many different parts of the Government. The noble Lord referred in his opening speech to the tourist industry itself, which comes under the Board of Trade; to licensing laws, which come under the Home Office; to purchase tax and depreciation allowances, which are a matter for the Exchequer; and to passport and visa problems, which are the concern of the Foreign Office. I am answering for the Board of Trade, but I will do my best to deal with the problems raised by noble Lords. I was very pleased to hear—and I think it should spur us to still greater efforts—that in the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale (and this view was seconded by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford) the standards of British cooking are good. Well, of course,"good" is a relative term. I hope that we shall emulate the Scotch, and make it still better. Then the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, referred to the Catering Wages Act, and asked me whether the Terms and Conditions of Work Act was better. It was based upon the experience of the Catering Wages Act, and if it is not better, it ought to be. As a matter of fact, I am told that there are few complaints by responsible bodies of the working of that Act, which I agree is a most important one.
The next point raised by the noble Lord, was the question of the licensing laws. I need not remind your Lordships that the Conservative Party, in its Election Address, said that the question of licensing laws would have attention. I was interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who said that in his view major alterations are not necessary or desirable. He said that one way of dealing with the matter might be to grant discretion to vary the timing without necessarily increasing the number of hours. That is a very interesting suggestion, and I will see that it goes to the right quarters.
Then the noble Lord urged that the Exchequer should give a more generous allowance for the depreciation of build
516
ings and a more generous investment allowance for the building of new hotels. I agree that this question of new hotels—of sufficient hotels of the right kind in the right place—is a matter of supreme importance to the tourist industry. Nevertheless, I think we are faced here with a serious difficulty; namely, that the hotel industry as a whole is not noticeably enthusiastic about building new hotels when it sees that for part of the year it is faced with the problem of their being somewhat unoccupied. It is argued that it would be more economical to provide extra accommodation by enlarging and developing existing buildings. But I hope that the hotel industry will have regard to what has been said here this evening: that this is an industry with a great future, and that there should be commercial rewards for following the course of events; for realising that the tourist trade is expanding and that all kinds of people are able to fly or to come by steamer to-day who never had that habit before the war. In my view, that will grow and grow, and it should be an inducement to the hotel industry. Of course, new hotels have been and are being built, particularly in London. There are three under construction at the present time in London, and there are two more in the planning stage. But I agree it is not only London; it is the other places, where perhaps the difficulties pare greater but the need is even more insistent.
I turn now to the question of taxes. If tax reliefs were allowed for expenditure on modernisation, I am afraid that this would be separating and favouring the hotel industry vis-à-vis many others which also make a contribution to the export campaign. Like other businesses, hotels can claim reliefs on repairs and maintenance. Improvements are treated as capital expenditure and do not qualify for tax relief in any non-industrial buildings. In brief, hotels are regarded as commercial buildings, and there are obvious difficulties in dealing with them for tax purposes. Other foreign currency earners, such as insurance companies, might complain that they deserved the same treatment in respect of the upkeep of their own buildings if these kinds of relief were extended to new hotels.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord would permit me to interrupt for one moment, what I, and I think

517
many of us, feel is that an hotel is not an attractive proposition for finance, whereas an insurance company is. Therefore I think it is only right that some special attention and consideration should be given to hotels. I do not think that the argument that relief would have to be given to insurance companies as well is really appropriate to the case.
LORD MILLS: It may not be appropriate to the case, but when people are thinking about their own interests they are bound to raise these cases, and we cannot just ignore them. We are faced with a dfficulty when considering the possibility of removing purchase tax from the industry's tools and equipment—that is to say, from furnishings, kitchen equipment and crockery. I fail to see how a satisfactory distinction can be drawn between those articles used by the hotel industry and exactly the same goods bought by the private householder.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Will my noble friend allow me? Nothing would be easier than that the invoice should be marked.
LORD MILLS: Well, in a perfect world that might be true. But we are not in a perfect world, and I can see many headaches and difficulties in the matter. However, it is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am only pointing out some of the difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale talked about shop hours. He asked;"Why should not a shopkeeper work for as long as he likes?" He also said that the attitude abroad was,"It does not matter what the Act of Parliament says. Let us work the hours of work which we wish to work." I hope he is not for one moment suggesting that we should advocate ignoring Acts of Parliament in this country.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: No; I did not mean that. I meant that good, sensible business is more important than the law; therefore, alter the law.
LORD MILLS: I perfectly understood what the noble Lord meant; but he must permit me just to smile at this time of the evening.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Fair enough !
LORD MILLS: As a matter of fact, shops do not, on an average, open now
518
for as many hours as they are permitted to open. That is one of the facts. I personally have a great deal of sympathy with the views of the noble Lord on this matter, but shopkeepers do not take advantage at present of the hours they are permitted to work. It is a fact that holiday resorts can for four months suspend closing hours. That does not affect London, but at holiday resorts permission is given to suspend closing hours.
Then there is the most important question of advertising. I have looked carefully into what is done in that respect, and I have a list here of the various journals in the United States which carry the Association's advertisements. They are not by any means confined to the glossy, expensive periodicals. I should be very happy to supply the noble Lord with a list of them, if he would wish that. The Travel Association are expertly advised on this matter, and I am satisfied that these journals cover a very large section of the population. If the noble Lord will forgive me another small piece of humour, he referred to this new class who travel now as the people who voted for us at the last election. I am sure that the people visiting these shores did not, although similar people here may have done.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: They are that kind of people.
LORD MILLS: Then there is the question of foreign labour in the hotels and catering industries. I am told that the British Hotels and Restaurants Association say that any skilled and semiskilled foreign workers whom the industry want can be brought in without difficulty, provided that a proper case is made to the Ministry of Labour. The Association say they are very satisfied with the position and that they have received the utmost co-operation from the Ministry of Labour in formulating their plans for recruiting foreign workers.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, referred to his trip to Australia, and the weariness of the time that one has to spend on the ground. I have just returned from a trip to Australia. Perhaps my colleagues, in sending me, had the same reason as the noble Lord suggested his had, or might

519
have had. I found the situation greatly improved from the years before I became a Minister, when I travelled very frequently to Australia and other places in the world. But that does not mean that there is not room for still greater improvement. I am sure there is, and it is very important that travellers are not wearied any more than is necessary.
Then there is the question of passports. It has been said that passports were designed and are regarded as a help to the traveller, and not a hindrance. One noble Lord referred to his experience in that direction. While arrangements are being made to substitute an identity card for the passport in certain cases, it is not felt that the passport can be abolished at the present time. Visas are another matter, and arrangements are being made to get rid of them. We now have arrangements with most countries in Europe not to require visas. The only country outside Europe to do so, so far, is Mexico, but arrangements are being made with other Latin-American countries from which it is hoped agreement on this point will result. With regard to passports, I may say that negotiations have been opened with nine member countries of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation with a view to replacing passports with identity cards. Those countries are: Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Denmark; and it is hoped that these negotiations will bear fruit in every case. As your Lordships know, there are passport-free day trips to France already being arranged.
I was very interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, which was answered by my noble friend Lord Craigton, who also brought a bit of humour into our discussion in the shape of black puddings. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, started off by saying that he had a vested interest in this matter, as he was chairman of a travel agency. That is what I should expect of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—getting into something which has great promise for the future. But he did refer to the fact that in his view certain essential services were in danger of being saturated, and he instanced Dover Harbour, London Airport and, of course, hotels. I need not
520
remind your Lordships that since the war a great deal of money has been spent on harbours and airports, and I am sure that that subject will be followed very closely to see that our harbours and airports are fitted to do the jobs they are expected to do. I have already referred to the question of hotels. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in addition to extolling the good food in British restaurants spoke of the importance of a friendly outlook to our visitors and I am sure that that is of great significance because, as I have said, the number of our visitors is going to grow and our attitude to them is important.
Speaking generally, I do not think people get"gipped" in this country—and long may that remain the position! The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to the decline by 13 per cent. in personal exports and suggested that a simpler scheme should be devised. I believe that the decline has largely been due to the reduction in purchase tax. We must realise that as purchase tax is reduced the anxiety to take advantage of that scheme dwindles; but the whole subject is under constant review. The noble Lord also referred to the value of spreading the holidays. I listened with very great interest to his speech on this subject the other day, and I have no doubt that it is attracting the attention it deserves. I was very struck by one phrase used by the noble Lord:"Do not let the golden stream by-pass our country,"—and I am sure we must do all we can to see that it does not by-pass this country.
Then the noble Viscount, my friend Lord Elibank, with his usual consistency and with great eloquence, took this opportunity to raise the question of small pictorial stamps of low value and urged that their adoption would be of interest to the tourist trade; and he assured us that there is strong support for his suggestion. I am not sure that my right honourable friend the Postmaster General is yet aware of the strength of that support, if it is as the noble Viscount says. But I think all I can say about it at this moment is that I will certainly bring his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right honourable friend the Postmaster General. He will, of course, be

521
only too well aware from previous debates on the subject that there are many other aspects of the question, apart from the question of tourists.
I have lost my notes concerning the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Perhaps it is as well. If I remember rightly, he was telling us how badly he was treated in Scotland; and after the exhilarating speech from my noble friend Lord Geddes I thought perhaps that was a little ballast which he usefully introduced. But I should like to say this to him. I am quite sure that the British Hotels and Restaurants Association will take very careful notice of what the noble Lord had to say, and I think the hotel trade generally will, because it is no service to this country—to the tourist industry or this country—if visitors are treated in the way the noble Lord experienced.
I should like to conclude by referring again to the social significance of this industry. As inverted exports, its financial significance is impressive. It is impressive even though we realise that it is a two-way traffic; perhaps it is impressive because it is a two-way traffic; more and more people are going abroad from this country and more and more people are visiting this country. I would go so far as to say that this exchange of peoples and the exchange of thoughts which accompany them is a great insurance even against war. Therefore the tourist traffic confers
522
upon us a highly significant social and political benefit. I do not think we should look upon this tourist traffic in this country exactly as confined to what we can get out of our foreign visitors. It is even more a question of what we can offer them. Hotels and hoteliers have the greatest responsibility in this connection; and it is not entirely a question of the physical comforts they can provide, important as that is, but also the warmth of the welcome they provide. Therefore I think that this debate has been most useful in telling people how important this traffic is—how important it is that we should provide for and treat our tourists properly, just as we expect to be provided for and treated properly by the countries which we visit.
7.45 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the British Travel and Holidays Association in connection with this subject and this debate. I should like to express my thanks to noble Lords in different parts of the House for having supported this Motion, and particularly to thank my noble friend Lord Mills for his careful, thoughtful and sympathetic response to the various points which we have brought before him. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw this Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eight o'clock.