Lords Sitting of 24 February 1959

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

HANDCROSS BY-PASS
2.35 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: 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 what are the reasons for the delay in completing the by-pass round the village of Handcross on the A.23 trunk road.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, when work started on the Handcross by-pass in May, 1956, it was expected that, given normal circumstances, the scheme would be finished by December, 1958. In reply to a Supplementary question by my noble friend Lord Hawke on the 10th February last I said that the Handcross by-pass would not now be finished until July of this year. This delay has been chiefly caused by difficulties over land acquisition concerning the Horsham road bridge, which goes over the line of the by-pass.
In the first place, there were unexpectedly a number of substantial objections to the draft order enabling the Minister to build the bridge. Though most of these were withdrawn after detailed negotiation, it was still necessary to make a compulsory purchase order to acquire the land needed for the bridge and its approaches. Furthermore, entry on to some essential plots owned by All Saints' Church and the National Trust could not be obtained under the compulsory purchase order and, accordingly, further negotiations were necessary. It was therefore not possible for work to start on the bridge until 1st September, 1958, some five to six months later than had been hoped.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he not agree that it would have been better
440
if the Minister of Transport, when he drew the line of the by-pass before the war, had acquired the land?

BRITISH SUBJECTS' PASSPORTS
LORD DERWENT: 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 the immigration authorities have a legal right to insist that a British subject hands his passport for examination on leaving the United Kingdom.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, under the Aliens Order, 1953, any adult person leaving this country may be required to furnish evidence of identity and nationality, for which purpose he is normally asked to produce his passport.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the Government consider rescinding that regulation?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, not so far as I am aware.
LORD DERWENT: 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 the identity or existence of the recommender, or his signature, on a passport application form is checked before a new passport is issued.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the identity or existence of every recommender or his signature is not checked before a new passport is issued. To do so would involve considerable delay and inconvenience to about 700,000 people each year, and I could not recommend this extension of red tape. But I can give the noble Lord the assurance, which I imagine he seeks by his Question, that the number of passports obtained by means of false declarations is a very insignificant fraction of those issued.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank my noble Leader for that Answer, but what I am seeking is something quite different. In view of the fact that this particular piece of procedure apparently

441
serves no useful purpose in preventing people who should not have them from getting passports, and gives an extreme amount of trouble to honest people, who I now hear are 700,000 in number every year, would Her Majesty's Government consider doing away with this bit of red tape?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I believe I have answered the Question on the Paper. I do not think the existing procedure causes inconvenience. I have looked at the number of offences compared with the total of people affected, and those who abuse the system are only a small fraction of 1 per cent. of the whole. There must be some check, but I think the existing practice—although I will look at it again—does reduce the inconvenience to citizens to a minimum.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to press my noble Leader, but may I ask if there is any check? When one has to get a new passport, does it not cause a considerable amount of trouble to the person who has to get a recommender and to the recommender who has to do the certifying? It must involve a good many man-hours per year.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, surely we do not want to have an announcement made that there is never a check on this matter. That would open much too wide a gate to the small number who do want to abuse the regulations.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not think it is in the public interest, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said, to divulge the present practice, but from my examination, I think the minimum of inconvenience is caused.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, how are the Government aware of the number of passports obtained by false pretences?
THE EARL OF HOME: Our Intelligence Service is very good.

TRADE WITH EASTERN GERMANY
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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 it is the case that the preferential trading arrangements now being introduced by the signatories to the Rome Treaty make it more important for this country to develop its trade with countries outside the common market including East Germany, now the fifth industrial State of Europe and one of our foremost competitors in the China market; and, if so, whether they can give an assurance that the first steps recently taken in this direction in relation to East Germany will be followed up with generous facilities for two-way trade.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, it is important that we develop our trade with all markets. As regards trade with Eastern Germany, if, as a result of the recently concluded unofficial Trade Arrangement, trade in both directions increases satisfactorily, we shall certainly support any efforts the Federation of British Industries may wish to make to increase it still further.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Would he be good enough to convey to his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade that it is no longer appropriate to apply the principle that goods may be imported from East Germany only if they cannot be obtained elsewhere? Further, is it not important, in view of the Common Market arrangements that are now proceeding, that we should endeavour to get trade going again with East Germany on a commercial basis, quite apart from political considerations?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords. As the noble Viscount knows, it is hoped that negotiations about the Free Trade Area may be resumed. That is a long-term question. In the meantime, it does create a short-term problem of increasing our trade with every particular country as much as we can.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I did not seem to hear any answer to the question about whether the rule of not getting any goods from East Germany if they can be obtained from somewhere else is in existence and operating.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I understand that the Trade Agreement covers goods in the course of the next year to the value of about £7 million each way. Of that sum, £2 million is subject to quota, and the remainder comes in under general licences.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Bill which stands in my name upon the Order Paper. It is a Bill which has already passed the House of Commons at the instance of a Private Member, Mr. Denzil Freeth, who was fortunate in the ballot for Private Members' Bills. It passed the other place with the warm approval of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
I think a short explanation is due to your Lordships of its origin, of what it does and why and how it does it. Its subject matter is the adjudication of claims made for family allowances or of benefit or pensions under the National Insurance Industrial Injuries schemes. These are subjects with which I have had some familiarity in the past. As Under-Secretary in the Home Office in the war years I was associated with the late Sir Robert Bannatyne in working out in detail a scheme to supersede the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. Sir Robert was one of the great civil servants of our day. He had given his life to the Industrial Division of the Home Office, and he had been with Workmen's Compensation since it started in 1898. He had already retired in 1939 but he rejoined us at the outbreak of war, and with infinite patience and skill devised the present scheme of National Insurance for industrial injuries. That scheme is his monument.
Later on, as Minister, I was for some years to administer all the schemes of
444
social security. Your Lordships will recall that, following upon Crichel Down and all that, a strong Committee was appointed, under the Chairmanship of Sir Oliver Franks, to inquire into and report upon all forms of administrative tribunals and inquiries. That Committee included the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, and my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, among other persons of distinction and experience. A large part—or a large part so far as members of the public were concerned—of the task of that Committee was to inquire regarding the adjudication on the literally hundreds of thousands of claims which arise every year under these social insurance schemes.
I must tell your Lordships, quite briefly, that there are two wholly different systems of adjudication relating to family allowances, on the one hand, and to insurance benefits and claims, upon the other. For insurance benefits and claims we were superseding the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, and we therefore had to give a lot of time and trouble to devising a good scheme of adjudication upon the claims. We devised a three-tier system, the claim in the first instance being settled by what is called an insurance officer—a civil servant of course, but acting as impartially as possible. From him there was a right of appeal to the local appeal tribunal, and from the local appeal tribunal there was by leave, and by leave only, an appeal to a Commissioner who enjoyed the status and position of a High Court Judge. This system was applied in the National Insurance Industrial Injuries Scheme, which was copied by the National Insurance Scheme, and it has earned the warmest approval from the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of Sir Oliver Franks, who state in paragraph 171 of their Report:
"The impression which we have gained of the working of the system of adjudication for National Insurance and Industrial Injuries claims is most favourable. The system is generally considered to have operated smoothly for many years, and we are satisfied that no structural changes are called for."
For family allowances the scheme of adjudication was wholly different. Under it the Minister, and the Minister alone, decided the claim in the first instance, whether it was to be allowed or not. From him an aggrieved party could go to a referee, who himself was appointed by

445
the Minister. Now this was a scheme much in vogue before the war for the contributory pensions schemes and matters of that kind. The reason why this, even then, out-of-date system of adjudication was adopted for the family allowances scheme was, of course, that as the war drew to an end, and as the Coalition Government became a little creaky, there was a certain amount of jockeying for position; and it was thought highly desirable that at least one of the great social security Acts should be placed upon the Statute Book before the General Election of 1945. Hence this outmoded scheme of adjudication was adopted for family allowances, and it has been in force ever since.
Now in relation to that matter the Franks Committee reported, at paragraph 184:
"We believe that family allowance cases could be satisfactorily decided in this way"—
that is, as insurance claims—
"and we accordingly recommend that the functions of Family Allowance Referees be transferred to National Insurance Local Tribunals, with appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner."
It is to effect this change that is the primary object of this Bill, and the change is incorporated in Clause 1. The fact that this change is being made involves, of course, no reflection at all upon the referees themselves, barristers of long standing, of whom the principal for many years has been Mr. A. C. Longland, Q.C. The other operative clauses of the Bill, Clauses 2 and 3, also carry out, in letter or in spirit, recommendations of the Franks Committee. Both clauses are to the benefit and advantage of injured workmen. Clause 2 provides an appeal on a point of law to the Commissioner from a decision of a medical appeal tribunal. Clause 3 gives art automatic, unrestricted, right of appeal from all local appeal tribunals to the Commissioner; hitherto appeal has always had to be by leave.
If I may just complete the picture, in case any of your Lordships thinks that some of the recommendations of the Franks Committee in this regard have been overlooked, perhaps I may say—and this was a matter which used to embarrass me considerably when I was the Minister—that I had to make the appointment to the chairmanship of these appeal tribunals. From January 1, under an Act we passed last year, the Tribunals and
446
Inquiries Act, those appointments will be made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, the Lord Chancellor. Another recommendation of the Franks Committee was that all hearings should be in public unless there was some special reason to the contrary, before tribunals dealing with insurance matters. That has always been the case—that hearings have been in public—so far as the Industrial Injuries scheme has been concerned. The Franks Committee recommended that that should be made general, and the Minister last July by regulations applied the provisions for public hearing to the National Insurance scheme also.
One other matter upon which the Franks Committee recommended was that legal or other representation should be allowed before all these adjudicating bodies. That also was part and parcel of the original Industrial Injuries scheme, and here again the Minister has applied this provision for representation, either by a lawyer or by a best friend, to persons making claims before National Insurance Tribunals. This Bill therefore does all that remains to be done, within its scope, to implement the recommendations of the Franks Committee on which, as I have said, several of your Lordships sat. It is not the good fortune of all of us who serve either as chairman or as members of Committees in this way to see our recommendations so speedily brought forward with a view to placing them upon the Statute Book. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Ingleby.)
2.55 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the House is indebted to the noble Viscount who has just introduced this Bill for the attractive manner, seasoned with some personal history, in which he did so. We on this side should like to felicitate the honourable Member of another place on having used his good fortune in the ballot to introduce this Bill and get it passed through the other place. As the noble Viscount has clearly indicated, the Bill is concerned principally with procedural matters, though that fact does not make the Bill any less important or any less useful, because most of the regulations which permeate a modern society are procedural and have their

447
repercussions and their effects upon us as citizens.
As the noble Viscount has stated, this Bill has a twofold purpose. It improves by transfer the adjudication of claims under the Family Allowances Act and also widens the right of appeal of claimants under the National Insurance Industrial Injuries Acts. In both respects these proposals reflect the recommendations of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries, now popularly, and one might almost say affectionately, referred to as the Franks Committee.
At the present time, as the noble Viscount has indicated, appeals in respect of family allowances are referred from the Minister to referees, of whom there are seven in England, two in Scotland and one in Wales. It is proposed to substitute for that adjudication machinery the machinery which operates as regards claims in respect of National Insurance, which means that in the place of the ten referees covering the whole of the United Kingdom there will be available and accessible, as I understand it, some 161 Appeal Tribunals for England, thirty for Scotland and twenty-two for Wales, which should permit—indeed, it is expected it will be the case—that all the claims in future will be heard orally, as against the present practice where, I understand, no more than about 7 per cent. are so heard. The Tribunals, being fairly well and properly distributed over the country, ought in most cases to be approachably near the homes of the claimants, and it is felt from the experience which has been had of the adjudication system operating for the claims of various characters arising from National Insurance that the proposal to transfer the machinery will be of appreciable benefit to the claimants.
In addition, the proposal has this further advantage: that there will be, as there is not at the present time, an automatic right of appeal from the Department to the local Tribunal and from the local Tribunal to the Commissioner. That is a substantial extension of the rights of appeal on the part of the claimant, and apart from one question which I shall later raise I am sure that every one of your Lordships will agree that the proposal as provided in the Bill is one that should receive the support of this House.
448
At the same time, as the noble Viscount has indicated, the Bill widens the scope of appeal as regards awards or claims under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts. Hitherto, there has been, as I understand it, no right of appeal on a point of law from the Medical Appeal Tribunal to the Commissioner. It is now provided that there should be a right of appeal from the local Appeal Tribunal and also that there should be a right of appeal from the local Appeal Tribunal without, as is presently the case, the leave of the Tribunal or the Commissioner being obtained.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these proposed amendments of the existing law are worth while and are wholly desirable from the point of view of the claimants. There is one point, however, in regard to which we on this side think that the Bill is defective: it relates to the future hearing of claims under the Family Allowances Act before the local tribunals. The present practice as regards claims under the National Insurance Acts is that the appeals should be heard in public, unless the chairman of the Tribunal decides otherwise. It will be quite understood, I am sure, by Members of your Lordships' House that in many cases the proper hearing and understanding of the claims involve the disclosure of much personal, intimate detail and information both of a domestic and of a medical character in which, on many occasions, the interests of a child may be concerned.
Accordingly, it was sought in another place to amend the Bill by providing that the claimant should himself have the right to say whether his case should be heard in private or in public. That proposal was opposed by the representative of Her Majesty's Government, probably, as I understand it from reading the proceedings in Committee in another place, because it would result in there being a different procedure for claims under the National Insurance Acts from claims under the Family Allowances Act. That seemed to me to be rather a tenuous objection, having regard to the desirability, as I think most of your Lordships will agree, of providing that personal details should not become the subject of public knowledge and information. In point of fact, I understand that the Amendment in another place was defeated in Committee

449
only by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Committee.
It was stated, and no doubt is the case, that some 10,000 claims have been considered by the local tribunals dealing with National Insurance; that out of that number in only 259 cases has the claimant asked that the matter should be considered in private, and of that 259 in only 24 was the application refused. I think that those figures, especially the figure of 259 requests, show that there is a case for giving to the claimant the right to say whether his case, with all the personal and intimate details which may be involved in its proper consideration, should be heard in public or in private, and that he should have the right to elect that the hearing should be in private. It may well be that my noble friends on this side of the House will at the appropriate subsequent stage introduce an Amendment to give effect to that suggestion and to provide for that right. Meantime, we take the view that this is a most useful and valuable Bill, arid we hope that your Lordships will give it a speedy passage through its Second Reading.
3.7 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, at first sight this Bill might seem to be a modest Bill consisting of but five clauses, but Her Majesty's Government consider it a most important and valuable measure. Your Lordships will remember the skill that my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack used when he explained to your Lordships the proposals of the Franks Committee Report. Your Lordships will remember how the proposals were welcomed in your Lordships' House and indeed throughout all the country, as the noble Viscount has already said. The noble Lord, Lord Latham has said that the Franks Committee was considered with affection throughout the country. I fancy that that is a very true statement indeed. This Bill is just another step towards providing that those proposals should be put into practice.
Your Lordships would wish to compliment the promoters of this Bill on the promptness with which they have been able to bring it forward. I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ingleby on bringing this Bill before your Lordships for a Second Reading, and also to congratulate the honourable gentleman
450
the Member for Basingstoke for sponsoring the measure as a Private Member's Bill in another place, and in steering it through its various stages there. There could be no one more qualified than the noble Viscount to bring the Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading. Your Lordships would wish me to pay tribute to all the service and the hard work that the noble Viscount performed in his high office for the implementation and even the design of the National Insurance schemes and the social services, too, and I hope that we shall hear further from him in the near future on this vital and important national subject.
My noble friend has already explained the provisions of this Bill and the advantages that it will give to all those who need to make use of National Insurance and local Tribunals. He also explained the rights of appeal to the appropriate National Insurance Commissioner over problems of family allowances and industrial injuries. My right honourable friend has specifically asked me to tell your Lordships how much he and his predecessors appreciated the services of the Family Allowance Referees. As has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ingleby, they carried out their tasks in a completely new field of law with wisdom and humanity and with great patience. I should like to add my congratulations to Mr. A. C. Longland, Q.C., who was the Senior Referee, on being honoured by Her Majesty The Queen in the New Year's Honours List with the C.B.E. as a tribute to his services and to the services of his colleagues. I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House, and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I wish it a speedy passage through its various stages on to the Statute Book. I beg to support its Second Reading.
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the friendly reception which has been given to this Bill. I should like in particular to thank the noble Lord, Lord Latham, for the good things that he said about it. He did not really differ from the Bill at all but would like one point added to it. That is, of course, a Committee point which no doubt we can discuss on another occasion. I would only say at

451
this stage that, for myself, I should hesitate before giving to any one party an absolute right to demand that his claim should be heard behind closed doors, with the exclusion of the Press and the public. The existing system, under which the chairman decides whether or not the court should be closed, has worked well under the Industrial Injuries scheme for a period of ten years, and I know of no difficulties which have arisen there; and in that scheme some pretty distressing circumstances have to be disclosed from time to time. I am not, therefore, altogether favourably disposed to the point made by Lord Latham. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, for his friendly reception of the Bill on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EISTEDDFOD BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed and to be printed.
INTERNATIONAL BANK AND MONETARY FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
DOMICILE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SUPERSESSION OF THE STEAM LOCOMOTIVE
3.13 p.m.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how far they have progressed on the supersession of the steam locomotive on British Railways, and whether they are satisfied with the results so far achieved; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, feel I have to say a word as to why I have ventured to bring forward this Motion. It is first and foremost a matter of money. I am horrified at the lightheartedness with which Parliament plans to authorise the spending of £1,500 million: it fills me with dismay. In the
452
working of a railway there are three dominant questions: traction, permanent way and safety appliances. Some years ago I ventured to draw your Lordships' attention to what I believed was the wrong policy of the British Transport Commission in dealing with railway traction. We then had a debate in which, I think I may fairly say, Her Majesty's Government failed entirely to give any convincing reason for the abolition of the steam locomotive, and for allowing the British Transport Commission to spend vast sums of public money in replacing the steam locomotive with some rather indeterminate system or systems.
In the interval, search for the new system does not seem to have got on very well. On April 9 last there appeared in The Times an article entitled "New Motive Power, the Key to Rail Efficiency"—a title that begged the question completely. The most important part of the article which, surprisingly, seems to have attracted little attention, was a passage which ran as follows:
"So far, however, the changes are marginal; the railways are not visibly being transformed in a revolutionary manner, and the much talked of changes in commercial policy and methods of fixing charges seem to hang fire."
That article can hardly have been published without the consent of the Ministry of Transport. The noble Lord who replies for the Government will no doubt tell us all about it.
What this seems really to have meant was that the Transport Commission, having no real plans and not knowing where to turn, thought they might gain time by building a number of diesel engines and going on with a much modified and reduced plan of electrification; and in this way avoid what they clearly ought to have done—namely, revert to the steam locomotive, which was there already for them, at a comparatively negligible cost. The one thing they appeared to want was to abolish the steam locomotive and thus pave the way for the huge expenditure that supersession of the steam locomotive must involve. Meanwhile, the Treasury seem to have woken up to the fact that the country cannot afford the huge expense of the system of electrification which had been proposed and that there is serious danger of a muddle of colossal dimensions.
At this point I may perhaps be allowed to comment on the situation as it exists

453
in regard to surface lines. For underground lines which include stations some form of electrification is practically unavoidable, in order not to pollute the atmosphere. As for the surface lines in this island, the only considerable area which is not worked by steam locomotives is the South East corner. Whether this area is more profitable than might be expected if it were worked by steam is a dead secret which wild horses could not drag from the managers. This information has often been asked for, and as often refused. For some reason which has never been disclosed, the Transport Commission were persuaded to plan to abolish the steam locomotive and replace it by some other system which has never even properly been thought out, the excuse being that a large number of foreign railways have abandoned the steam locomotive. I am not aware that any of these railways has secured any profit from so doing.
What really started the move for the abolition of the steam locomotive seems to have been that the United States oil companies, being very anxious to sell more oil, got their enormously powerful organisation to work, and succeeded in persuading most of the American railways, and a number of others, to adopt the diesel. They have omitted, however, to give any figures in support of the favourable result which the diesel engine might have been expected to have on the railways themselves, and have ignored the difficulties that the diesel engine itself presents. There is, first of all, this great complication: that, whereas the steam locomotive has at the outset 4 cylinders, the diesel usually has 12 to 16; and diesel engines are far more complicated and require more skilled maintenance than the steam locomotive. They also require much earlier replacement. The steam locomotive is entirely springborne. The diesels, as so far tried on the railways of this country, are reported to run so roughly that they are knocking the permanent ways to pieces.
Finally, there is the fuel question: is it not better, from a national point of view, to drive our trains with a fuel which we have much more of than we can use, rather than with imported oil which may be cut off at any moment? When the electrical industries and others saw how much money the oil companies were making they did not hesitate to press their
454
own claims, and the crowds of applicants for introducing some or any new system became unmanageable. There are gas turbines, several different kinds of electrification and diesel traction and atomic energy. The only thing on which there was agreement was that the steam locomotive should be abolished. The French and the Americans are the principal people who have made changes. The conditions in their countries vary to some extent from those here. There is plenty of water power in France, and plenty of oil in America. I am not favourably impressed by either of these systems, because there is a complete absence of facts or figures to show that they are cheaper or more efficient than the steam locomotive. But the French and the Americans must spend their own money as they like, and it is no business of ours.
The Government have been deplorably slack in accepting, as a reason for abolishing the steam locomotive, the argument that it is outmoded, or some such phrase begging the question. What about the experts who recommended this course? Were they supermen who were immune from the temptations that beset humanity and who could be trusted to give their decisions strictly in the interests of the country at large? Was none of them concerned with the manufacture or supply of objects or undertakings that the spending of vast sums of money must involve? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I am reluctant to differ from the noble Lord who has just spoken in defence of the steam locomotive, especially since I yield to no one in my affection for those busy, majestic machines such as the one which drew me over Beattock and Shap last night while I slept. I might add that my children regard me as "a little soft on top" (I think that is their description) as regards railways and steam engines. I feel, however, with sentimental regret, that there is no alternative but to face the fact that, in the world in which we live, the steam locomotive's days are numbered.
I have some experience of the use of diesel-electric traction, for, curiously enough, a railway system with which I had something to do in India installed a diesel-electric railcar as long ago as in 1934. This was a British machine,

455
operated on a narrow-gauge "feeder" line in the Central Provinces which stretched for many miles across the plain; and it was installed in order to meet competition from bus traffic on a parallel road system. That was competition with a capital "C", because, if I may weary your Lordships with an anecdote, in the early days, before that road was tarmacked, it was the practice for bus operators to tow a bundle of branches behind their machines and to drive them alongside the railway in such a way that the consequent clouds of dust impaired the train driver's vision and covered the passengers in the railway cars with dust. But those days are long since over. I heard from India only the other day that that machine was still operating satisfactorily and was still making a profit, in the face of acute competition from a parallel system on tarmac roads.
I mention that matter, as an anecdote, because I feel that electric traction has come to stay—certainly as far ahead as we can reasonably see. I feel that the diesel-electric locomotive, unsatisfactory as it may be in many technical respects—though, of course, it is more efficient, in terms of thermal efficiency, than the steam engine—is, in a manner of speaking, only a stepping-stone to universal, or almost universal, electrification of main lines. When people talk of the difficulties inherent in electrification (if I may again cast my mind back to India) it is not always remembered that there exist the fantastic broad-gauge, double-track systems on the Ghat section of the G.I.P. Railway, which illustrate the great developments of railway traction. In my day this system was operated by multiple-headed steam trains which were first coal-fired but, soon after became oil-fired, and later, in the 'thirties, were converted to complete electrification with regenerative braking. I think it would be virtually impossible to convince the careful thinker that such a step was not progress, and progress all the time.
If diesel-electric traction is indeed an intermediate step, I feel that we can put up with some inefficiencies. But one has to remember that, in transferring a system from steam traction to electrification, a complex and mountainous series of problems arise—problems ranging not only from the design of traction equipment to rolling stock, but to the whole question
456
of track layout, track reconstruction, signal engineering and design—and, of course, the massive electricity distribution system which must run side by side with electrification. In addition—and perhaps more important—operating staff must be trained; and to that end, again, a diesel-electric locomotive offers an intermediate step. May I at this moment make a plea that, so far as train crews are concerned, the authorities, in picking their men for training, do not overlook the existing steam engine crews, and especially the younger men among them. I am certain they have this point in their minds, but it seemed to me to be a matter worth mentioning.
Talking of crews, when one compares photographs of the steam locomotive of a hundred years—or even fifty years—ago with those of the steam locomotive of to-day, the difference in conditions between those of engine crews a hundred years ago and those of the engine crew to-day is very marked. But not so marked, my Lords, as the difference in working conditions between those of the engine crew to-day in a steam locomotive and the tie-wearing, shirt-sleeved, shiny cap-wearing, driver that I saw at the controls of the Trans-European Express in Brussels only a few months ago. Working conditions in a diesel locomotive are, of course, more in keeping with what we to-day regard as proper conditions for men to work.
My view, then, is that this progress is inevitable, and that the ultimate goal is overall electrification. For one thing, such a goal would be a step towards tackling the problem of congestion, of which those of us who travel to the termini, particularly in the north of London, are so fully aware. When a steam train goes late (as they so often do, particularly in conditions of weather such as we have had recently) the resultant congestion is greatly accentuated by the lack of flexibility in steam traction on gradients, in tunnels, and the like. Again talking from experience, we have occasionally, of course, diesel-headed trains running on the night services from Scotland; and, speaking from the ordinary traveller's experience, there is no question that they are better able than steam-drawn trains to make up time and to fit into schedules in adverse weather conditions. To revert to the question of labour

457
conditions, and the working conditions of the engine crews, I would say that the labour required to-day from a fireman would be regarded in many industries as sheer nonsense in a mechanical age like this.
My Lords, diesel-electric locomotion is—or will be—a link, for I feel that we must look ahead to universal electrificaton. To that end I wonder if I might ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether the engine designers have been able to develop a diesel-electric locomotive which can switch to overhead supply by pantograph in the course of its run. It seems to me that, if we are to look forward to overall electrification, the day will soon come when long-distance trains will have to pass from electrified to non-electrified sections, and a locomotive of that design might again extend this link which I take the view the diesel-electric locomotive creates.
The supersession of the steam locomotive should not be taken to mean the elimination of the use of coal. Surely, as the Minister of Power said in this Chamber only the other day, it will be many years before the generation of electricity can be visualised without a compensating consumption of coal. Of course it is within the bounds of possibility that electricity may be produced direct from nuclear fission, but that would be another matter. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, in a speech made during a recent debate on coal, suggested that the time would not be far off when our scientists would be able to produce oil fuel from coal, thereby using our existing fuel resources in the modern medium of the internal combustion engine. Coal must be our main source of fuel for many a year to come, but I feel that, in a competitive world, we cannot survive as a nation unless we use our resources of fuel with proper thrift. Incidentally, in terms of fuel, we may note the contribution which hundreds of steam locomotives make to the smog problem, despite the best efforts of shed and engine crews. That in itself is a costly charge to the economy of the country.
My last point is perhaps my most important. It is that I feel that a massive programme of railway electrification would be one of the greatest contributions which we could make to promoting employment and to stepping up the use
458
of steel at a time when we are aware of the short-fall in the off take of the products of our steel plants. When we come to think it out, the employment created would be of a fantastically varied range. It would mean work and work, and more work, not only within the plants of the railways themselves but also in the electrical engineering manufacturers' plants, in the metal-producing industries, apart from steel—I refer to aluminium and the like, many thousands of tons of which will be necessary to help with the transmission and distribution of electricity—steel fabrication, and porcelain for insulation. The range is fantastic. I believe that on these grounds alone, this possibility of injecting into our economy a kick, as it were, of potential consumption is as good a reason as any other for electrification. I feel that work of this nature would all be work contributing to progress.
3.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, I am one of those maybe misguided or unfortunate persons born with an itch to be an engine driver. I have had the privilege, not of fully satisfying that desire, but of working in the motor fire department of the British Railways and graduating as a special fireman, earning my keep by the sweat of my brow, heaving coal into the furnace in endeavouring to keep the train going. It is from my experiences in the British Railways motor fire department that I wish to speak to-day.
The first aspect I should like to touch upon is that of safety. I do so because in recent months there have been a number of accidents in which this question of the training in safety precautions of train crews and those responsible has arisen. I should like to say at once that, so far as British Railways are concerned, safety is first with them. I joined the railway service at 8 o'clock one morning, and at half past eight I was presented with a rule book, plus a sheet of paper, pointing out to me the rules that were relevant for me to know. Before I had been in that shed for a fortnight I was examined by an inspector to see whether I had read these rules. I was not expected to know them word-perfect, but I was expected to know what they said and to understand their purport. That purport was safety.

459
Before I was allowed to go on to a footplate to carry out what may be termed responsible work I had to pass an examination to ensure that I knew what I was doing on the footplate, and that I knew the various safety precautions I had to carry out not only to protect myself but to protect others. As well as the rule book, at every station and shed there is a set of standing orders covering incidents which are not covered within the rule book. Every man in the shed—driver, fireman and cleaner—is required to read those standing orders and to sign a book stating that he has done so.
Another safety precaution is that every week drivers are issued with booklets which set out the repair work—track repair, station repair or bridge repair work—that is being carried out within their areas and gives the speed limitations. One weakness I should like to mention is that this booklet is available only to drivers. The driver is supposed to show it to his fireman. If you have a regular driver, that is fair enough; he will nearly always show it to you. But if you are a special fireman, as I was, who rarely gets the same driver two weeks running, it is often a different matter. Your Lordships know that people differ. I found that one driver would show me the book, while another would have taken umbrage if I had asked for it, although the rule of the railways was that he had to show it to me.
I would give your Lordships an instance concerning this booklet and the incidence of its issue. The booklet is available from ten o'clock onwards on Sunday night when a driver books on for the beginning of his week he is given a copy. One Sunday my driver and I booked on and the driver was given his work book. We had to take a train out straight away and the time allowance was ten minutes for booking in, gathering our gear together and walking over and getting on the train. It was a fast goods train running in front of the Midnight Scot. There was half an hour's allowance in front, and to keep ourselves from delaying the express train we had to keep moving. When we arrived at Crewe we had not delayed the Midnight Scot. We booked off and went to the canteen to have a cup of tea, and the guard who had been with us said to my driver, "Did you see that permanent way restriction of
460
fifteen miles an hour?" The driver said, "No, I did not; I did not even know it was there." We had gone over this part of the permanent way which was restricted to fifteen miles an hour at between fifty and sixty miles an hour. If anything had happened the driver would have been at fault because he had not read his booklet. But he had hardly had time to do so. He had no time before joining the train and, as noble Lords who have been on a footplate will know, there is not much light to read by there.
The other example of where flaws can occur in the safety regulations is in the standing orders. There is one standing order known as Regulation 5. That is used if you come to a signal and it is at stop. You should then get down, telephone the signal box and tell them that you are there, and the signalman will say to you: "Regulation 5". What it means is that the section is clear but the station is blocked, and you should enter into the section carefully until you come up behind the train that is already in. One worked away at this for a long time and discovered that a lot of firemen had no idea what Regulation 5 meant. They were getting down, ringing up the signal box and saying, "We are here"; they were getting the answer "Regulation 5" and telling the driver, "Oh, Regulation 5", but they had no idea what it meant. Fortunately, no instance occurred where they had to apply their common sense. It is a point which shows that, with all the care in the world, things can go astray.
The next matter, still on safety, is the vital one of reporting signals, and I mention this in view of some of the recent accidents where misreading of signals has taken place. It is the driver's duty to observe all signals, and, as the rule book puts it, he has to endeavour to have his fireman unemployed at all busy junctions to assist him in the reading of signals. In most cases this is done, although sometimes the fireman has to be employed on his task of shovelling in coal. However, as a fireman, you learn from experience where you are needed to observe signals and where you are not. I know of one case where one always has to assist, and that is going into Birmingham, New Street. There the signals are on the right hand side of the train and it is impossible

461
for the driver to tell how far up the platform he stops unless the fireman is alert and watching for the signal. There are other signals where it is the fireman and not the driver, who sees the signals first; and the two men have to work together.
Similarly in fog they have to work in close harmony and it is possible for one to see the signal and the other not to. I had an instance of that one foggy morning. We were going up between Rugby and Crewe and we knew the signal we had to find. We were looking out for it, and I saw it come out in our favour. It never struck me that my driver had not seen it until he said: "Have we passed that signal?" I said: "Yes, and it was all right." To me it stood out absolutely clearly, but my driver could not see it. Of course, had it been against us I would have told him if I thought that he was not stopping.
There is a question that I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to answer, and that is on the use of detonators in fog. I should like to know whether they are still used, even though the colour light signal is in use. The old semaphore detonators were always used and were most helpful. You came to a signal, and not only did you have a detonator, which gave you the fright of your life, but there would be someone on the ground who would shout out to you any information such as that there was a train ahead of you, so that you went into the section knowing that there was something there already; whereas colour lights are not always so easily seen as people make out.
Still on the subject of safety is the question of eyesight. There is, I think, a slight weakness here. When you join British railways your eyesight is tested. When you graduate from being a fireman to a fast fireman, your eyesight is again tested. Then you graduate from a fast fireman to a driver, and your eyesight is tested once more. But there may be a period of ten years between the two. However, the worst thing, in my opinon, is that when you are a driver, having graduated from fast fireman, you go without a test until the age of sixty. After that I think it is an annual event. But I have known of two or three occasions where at sixty it was discovered that a driver's eyesight was faulty, and it was not known how many years before that
462
it had been faulty. I suggest regular five-year intervals of sight testing, so that a weakness in this respect is not found out much too late.
The next point I want to mention is what are called service conditions. One of the things that interested me about British Railways was that when you joined you felt that you had joined a service in which you got a fair part, no matter how low your job was. You might have been given a dirty job to do, but somebody explained to you that it was worth while and made you feel that you were wanted. Also, I was working away from home and had to live in British Railways' hostels, and the care taken of the staff was highly commendable. But conditions fell down in the actual working. Your hours were chronic; you went on at any time of the day or night required, and it frequently happened that you could not even make a "date" with anybody because you never knew what time you would be working. Then you often went to work and there was no job to do, and you had to sit your time out in the sheds, twiddling your thumbs and feeling that you could be doing something much more useful.
The other aspect was the change in status, and this applied especially to drivers. Prior to the war the driver was the king of his trade and sometimes called the aristocracy of the working class. He was highly paid, and looked up to. But when I was with British Railways we had drivers who had reached the top of their profession and, having reached the retiring age of sixty-five, were getting £6 18s. per week, the top rate at that time. When they left they received a pension of 10s. a week from British Railways, and they went across the road to a factory and were given £6 8s. a week for sweeping the floor. It did not make drivers feel that they had a job which commanded respect in the country. Your Lordships will realise that the responsibility carried by these men is tremendous. They have to know exactly where they are going, and it takes only one mistake not only to put them out of a job but to take away many people's lives. When one considers the amount of traffic moved daily, one realises how very few mistakes are made, although a great deal of fuss is made when they are.

463
I come now to the question of steam versus other methods, either diesel-electric or electric. It is thought by many that if the railways transfer from steam to one of these other methods, that is the answer. I agree that it goes a long way and that many benefits are to be derived from operating diesel-electric or electric services. But many of the drawbacks to British Railways' operations will be there still, because those drawbacks do not all lie within the power of the Government to alter. I would mention various things that cause trains to be late and give the people so much anguish. A train may be running on time but finds a signal against it. Why? Some other train, a freight train or even a local feeder train, has been held up, maybe for a good reason. Perhaps seeing a customer who has not reached the station on time the guard has waited a minute or two to allow him to get on. The effect it has on the main line is to delay the express. That is one of the reasons for signals. There are many others. Odd things happen which nobody knows about.
With regard to permanent way repairs, as we know, it is a national pastime to dig up our roads, especially during the summer, but equally it is a national pastime to dig up the railways. They do that at any time of the year, and maybe for good reasons; nevertheless, it does slow down the operation. If you have to slow down to fifteen miles per hour, it takes a long time to get back to sixty or seventy miles per hour. Whether you have steam, diesel-electric or electric engines the difficulty will still be there. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said that he felt that diesel trains were better in adverse weather conditions. I do not know whether they are. Snow and ice have their effect—the points freeze up. It does not make much difference when you have a fog; it is still difficult to see through it. Finally there is the failure of the engine, or some mechanical defect. In this case it usually meant that a person in the position I held was not up to the mark and was not able to give the driver sufficient steam. Not long ago I read of an interesting instance of how, on December 30, 1958, a diesel Deltic type locomotive slowed down outside Bletchley for a permanent way repair. The brakes went on and they
464
could not get them off again, so they had to take the engine off and put on a steam engine. I am not saying that to praise steam above other methods, but to point out that the things that happen to steam can happen to the other methods as well. They are there all the time.
We have in this country a good system, but the density is tremendous. Every train leaving Euston for the North—Rugby, Birmingham, Manchester, Crewe and northwards—has to use the same lines. I know there is a diversion around Northampton which adds a little to the time, but there is just one long queue of trains to the various parts of the country. Should any one of them suffer from any of the defects I have mentioned, the whole are affected. I used as illustration the Midland Region, the Euston-Carlisle line. The same thing happens on the West of England line. Each line is just a channel, and there is a queue of trains one behind the other. If everything goes all right it is perfect, but it needs only one thing to go wrong to upset the applecart.
I am afraid I have taken far too long, but I should like to add one more point. We hear comments that the railways are not so good now as they were in the past. I was reading the other day of some comparisons of the times. The Euston-Rugby route, a distance of eighty-two miles, in 1933 was timed at 92 minutes, in 1939 at 86 minutes (and these times were maintained) and in 1959—the same distance—at 80 minutes. So we are improving gradually. I wish British Railways every success in their endeavour, with either diesel or diesel-electric motive power, bearing in mind that they have been set a tremendous standard by those who have worked with steam.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, on a point of explanation, may I say that my reference to weather conditions, so far as I can recall, was certainly intended to refer to crews: that the difference between the conditions of the diesel crew and those of the steam crew in bad weather is marked.
4.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for having given us an idea of what his arguments were going to be to-day. I fully sympathise with much that the noble

465
Lord, Lord Monkswell, must be feeling. I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and, obviously, the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, am a railway enthusiast. I must say that I am sorry to see these magnificent beasts disappear gradually from the railways, but we cannot stop the march of progress. However, I will come to that aspect later.
I think I should remind your Lordships of the wording of the Motion which is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government how Ear they have progressed in the supersession of the steam locomotive on British Railways, and whether they are satisfied with the results so far achieved."
I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that there is no question of Her Majesty's Government suppressing steam locomotives. The Commission are completely free, as part of their management functions, to select the sort of equipment they want for their services, and any decision to supersede Steam by oil is taken by them in the light of the best advice and information available at the time. I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing lighthearted in their decision. The results of the introduction of diesel services will show that this decision was not an error; and that matter also I wild come to later.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, also said in this connection something to the effect that it was the Treasury who had said that this modernisation must take place, and that electric tracition should supersede steam. Again I can assure the noble Lord that that is not so, and that the Transport Commission, who are now carrying out their own reappraisal of their modernisation plan, have taken their own decisions in this: it is not a question of any dictation by the Treasury. The noble Lord quoted an article from The Times. He said that this could hardly be published without the consent of the Ministry of Transport. Surely the noble Lord knows, as I am sure all your Lord ships do, that newspapers are entirely free to print and publish comment and criticism of anything they like, including a modernisation plan, and the Ministry's consent for this is not in any way required. As for the article itself, I do not think that the estimate is any way correct now. The modernisation plan is in tap gear; locomotives are coming forward at a good pace, and in
466
some cases will be introduced faster or in greater numbers than was thought possible in 1956, or even in 1958, when the article was written. All the regions are decentralising their traffic organisation, and where it has become fully established the results are encouraging. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this article was not, in the light of events, strictly accurate.
The great operating advantages of electric and diesel traction over steam lie in acceleration and greater availability. Better acceleration gives higher average speed, which in turn gives a more economical use of track capacity. Greater availability means that fewer locomotives are needed to operate services, and the Commission accordingly save interest, depreciation and maintenance costs. Examples of some of the Commission's future plans show this very well. Deltic locomotives, the largest and most powerful type of main-line diesel locomotive yet used in this country, will be introduced in 1960 and 1961 to work the express passenger services between King's Cross, Newcastle and Edinburgh. Twenty-two of these engines will replace 55 steam locomotives. On main-line workings to and from the West of England 129 diesel hydraulic locomotives which are expected in service by 1961 will replace over 200 steam locomotives. Furthermore, the Commission's scheme to substitute diesel for steam in the Bristol area will require 157 main-line diesel locomotives, instead of, as at present, 300 steam locomotives. Two further schemes planned for East Anglia and the Great North of Scotland and Highland lines involve replacement of 820 steam locomotives by 325 diesels.
I think your Lordships would agree that from those examples it can be seen generally that one main-line diesel will do the work of at least two steam locomotives; and broadly the same is true of electric locomotion.
LORD MONKSWELL: Has that ever been proved?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I will come to that later, by giving figures of experience to date. This reduction in the number of traction units not only gives the Commission substantial savings in running and maintenance costs, but also helps to off-set the high first cost of the diesel locomotive compared with its

467
steam counterpart. This is particularly true of the electric locomotive because of the much lighter weight of its power unit for a given horsepower. Moreover, electrification, because of the acceleration and density of service it permits, enables heavy traffic to be shifted more readily and cheaply than under any other system of traction.
The Commission's modernisation plan introduced in December, 1954, was based on the premise that its main components should be capable of being started within the next five years and completed within fifteen; that is, by 1970. It may be argued that by modernising on two fronts the Commission are dissipating their resources. A development of this argument is that it is equally wrong to have two main systems of electrification. The answer to the first criticism is that the present advance along both fronts is necessary. I think I might say this—for although nobody has argued this way to-day, I do not think my argument would be complete unless I did so: electrification is a long-term form of investment, and the Commission cannot afford to wait on all their present schemes coming to fruition before entirely discarding steam traction. Diesels are a very necessary interim measure. Furthermore, many lines are not suitable for electrification, which requires a certain minimum density of traffic to make it an economic proposition, and the Commission have never intended in their plan that all the lines in the country will be electrified. Diesels are accordingly necessary for many services and will continue to be so. One further point is that the present arrangements are flexible. Diesels can, if necessary, be used on a line until it is electrified and can then be transferred to other duties.
At present the Commission's resources are at full stretch in implementing most of the electrification schemes outlined in the White Paper, Proposals for the Railways. My noble friend Lord Ailsa mentioned digging up the railways in the same context as digging up the roads, but we cannot have modernisation without a certain amount of digging up. That is something which I mentioned the other day, in the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the Transport (Borrowing Powers) Bill: that we shall have to put up with works on the lines
468
until modernisation is complete. Work is proceeding on the North Kent coast scheme, and stage 1 of this should be complete by the middle of this year. The Fenchurch Street—Southend scheme is going according to plan, and is expected to be completed in 1961. Stage 1 of the Glasgow suburban scheme (due to be completed in mid-1960) and the Hertford East— Bishop's Stortford schemes are both well under way. The Colchester—Chelmsford scheme is due to be completed in September, 1961. On main-line electrification, your Lordships will know, as I indicated in the debate that I have already mentioned, that the Commission are at present concentrating all their available resources on the London Midland route from Manchester and Liverpool to Euston, and hope to accelerate its completion.
That list, my Lords, takes no account of the schemes which the Commission have already completed. Some of these, admittedly, were not included in the modernisation plan, but to ignore them would distort the picture of the very real progress that the Commission have made in this field. The Liverpool Street—Shenfield scheme was officially opened in September, 1949, and the Manchester—Sheffield Wath line in September, 1954; and the extensions of the Liverpool Street—Shenfield scheme to Chelmsford and Southend came into use in June and December respectively in 1956.
I will come to diesels. Between January, 1955, and the end of last year the Commission had brought into service 103 main-line diesel locomotives, 787 diesel shunting locomotives and 2,000-odd diesel multiple-unit vehicles. This, I think your Lordships will agree, represents a very formidable achievement, and some indication of the pace of the programme is shown by the fact that in December last year and in January this year multiple-diesel units were becoming available at the rate of 70 per month.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier asked me whether it was technically possible that diesel-electric engines could be dualised, so to speak, so that when they arrived at the electrified section they could put up their pantograph and carry on using the electric current in place of their diesel engines. I understand that this is technically possible, and it is very much in mind; but there are, in fact, no

469
such locomotives at present either in service or under manufacture. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, also asked whether present steam train crews could and would be trained for transfer to diesel engine and electric engine. I understand that not only is this in the mind of the Commission but several crews have already been so trained, and they will be given priority.
I will come back to the diesel traction and continue the argument that they are in many ways much more attractive than steam. It is, for example, considerably cleaner. Although the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, did not mention this point to-day, he has argued in the past that the diesels emit obnoxious fumes which are fouler than locomotive smoke. I understand that if a diesel locomotive is well maintained—and it is the Commission's intention that they should be—there is no reason why fumes should cause any discomfort at all to passengers on the train, and certainly there is no comparison between that and what sometimes comes through the window of the steam-driven train.
The results of diesel services speak for themselves. Your Lordships will no doubt remember what I said on the Second Reading of the Transport (Borrowing Powers) Bill, but perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I mention again, for the information of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who I do not think was present, some of the results to date. The Scottish Region inter-city diesel service between Edinburgh and Glasgow, introduced in 1957, carried 700,000 extra passengers in its first yew of operation.
LORD MONKSWELL: With how many more trains?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: That I will lot the noble Lord know. I regret to say that I have not that information with me.
LORD MONKSWELL: That is essential; it is vital.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I will let the noble Lord know. Anyway, the Scottish Region introduced this service, which carried 700,000 extra passengers in its first year of operation, and there has been a still further increase in the second year. In Hampshire, where the Southern
470
Region introduced local diesel services in 1957, there was a 20 per cent. increase in the number of passengers carried during the first six months of operation and a reduction in the staff required to work the services. In fact it became necessary to order extra vehicles to cope with the traffic. On the Newcastle—Middlesbrough service, introduced towards the end of 1955, annual receipts have increased from £207,000 to £312,000, and a loss on movement cost of some £10,000 in 1955 has been changed into a surplus of over £137,000 in 1958. Many of the diesel services illustrate a similar success story, and I think it is clear from the fact that passengers are attracted by this new equipment, that many more who deserted the railways in the days of steam will come back to them.
I should like just to sound one word of warning—namely, that the benefits and advantages of diesel traction, though to my mind quite clear, and having produced the fairly spectacular results which I have mentioned, cannot by themselves cure all the railways' financial difficulties. Some of the diesel services introduced on branch lines and on local services in areas where there is a low-traffic density are admittedly experimental, and the Commission do not regard them as sacrosanct merely because they are diesel services. Diesels attract more passengers but, unfortunately, not yet necessarily in sufficient numbers to turn in these cases a loss into a profit. The multiple-unit services introduced so far are at present all under review. Some of them, unfortunately, in spite of increased traffic, still do not pay, and may have to be closed.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, argued about imported oil and said that we should not desert the steam engine for this reason. The only thing that I think I can say here is that we must have a sense of proportion in this matter. The railways are not by a long way the only industry to think that oil is vital. If the railways consider that by introducing oil-powered diesel engines they are going to be able to provide a more efficient and economic service, they should not be put off by a fear that we might be cut off from oil. If all industries, all means of locomotion or other users of oil in this country, were to drop the use of oil for this reason, we should soon come to an effective standstill.

471
As was obvious from his speech, the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, has had first-hand experience, which I regret to say that I have not. I am not really in a position, as the Motion was not particularly on the subjects which he mentioned, to argue with him on subjects such as safety and drivers' lapses over signals, but I have no doubt that the chairman of the Transport Commission will read the remarks of the noble Marquess to see whether any suggestion which he has made for improvement can, in fact, be introduced. I understand that the problem of unaccountable lapses on the part of drivers to observe signals is being examined by the Medical Research Council, at the invitation of the Transport Commission, and I will write to the noble Marquess about this matter, if he will permit me to do so. As to rates of pay—a matter which was also raised by the noble Marquess—as your Lordships know, the Guillebaud group are studying railway pay. Their study is at present proceeding, and I do not think your Lordships can expect me to say anything about that at this moment.
My Lords, I do not know whether I have been able to convince the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, at all. Knowing of the correspondence which he has had with the Transport Commission and with the Minister, I am certain that no argument that I can produce would in any way persuade Lord Monkswell away from the steam engine. As I said earlier, I, too, am an enthusiast of the steam engine and shall be sorry to see this magnificent piece of machinery disappear from the land. It has a majestic beauty and action, and it is somehow a symbol of our past supremacy in engineering. But compared with diesel or electric traction it is wasteful of fuel; it has to spend a great deal of its working life in being cleaned, in raising steam and so on. Much as we might admire this animal, I do not think that we should retain it beyond its usefulness for what I think must be sentimental reasons. I have no doubt that the same was said at the time when steamships superseded sail; and maybe when cars superseded horse transport. I do not think that we can halt progress. It certainly is not the Government's intention to ask the Transport Commission to do so.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl to explain one thing in his speech? He said that one diesel locomotive was able to do the work of two steam locomotives. Would he tell us how that happens? Obviously, it does not pull two trains at one time.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I said that the Transport Commission were trying a certain number of diesels and that they needed only so many diesels to carry out the work of double the number of steam engines. I am not very much of a technician myself although I take a great interest in the railways. I understand that the main reasons are that a diesel can operate for much longer periods without maintenance, and that it does not require time to get steam up. As a result of this, diesel engines can be turned round much more quickly than steam engines, so that, for example, a diesel engine can do a return journey without having to go in for coaling and so on; and can therefore make a connection at the other end; whereas with the steam engine another one would have been needed to do that journey. Those, I believe, are the main reasons involved.
4.30 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, may I make just one point? A fortiori those arguments apply to the electric locomotive. It is the much greater time spent in doing the actual service that gives it advantages over the steam locomotive—to which I know the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is by affection, habit and use so much addicted. I feel that the British Transport Commission have a very good case for using the diesel locomotive as an interim or stop-gap arrangement until they can get full electrification. But I hope, with other noble Lords, that that policy will not delay the full completion of an electric transport system which I believe to be best adapted to the circumstances of this country and best suited to the national economy. That is the real way of using our coal. As a noble Lord has said, it will be a long time before all power comes from atomic energy. The electric locomotive fulfils the need completely and, I believe, even more strikingly than the diesel, and will enable the Commission to secure those economies in operation which are so much to be desired. Also, electric loco-

473
motives will attract traffic because they are silent, clean and in other respect very attractive to the people who are drawn by them.
4.32 p.m.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I must apologise for not being in better health, but unfortunately I am an invalid and am unable to marshal my thoughts as well as I should like. I had hoped that there would be some definite figures forthcoming from this debate but I cannot find that there is anything at all. We have heard no definite figures with regard to costs or anything else. All that we have heard to-day is very marginal—which I suppose means quite untrue. I had hoped that a debate on this subject might lead to a standstill for the time being and that a lot of things would come out in the course of an investigation; but it cannot be said that anything we have heard to-day has really proved anything.
I had hoped that the principal matter which I had endeavoured to bring for-ward—costs—might have been dealt with. Many things could have been gone into much more deeply than they have been. It seems to me that what we have heard has very largely developed into a general criticism of railways, but it is extra-ordinarily difficult to say that one has got hold of any new facts at all. I hope that the facts which the chairman of the British Transport Commission has will be published much more freely than at present. I am afraid I can do no more at present but beg your Lordship's pardon for taking up a good deal of your time owing to the fact that I am an invalid and eighty-three years old. Although I am completely dissatisfied with a great deal of what I have heard, I can only beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SMALL SAVINGS
4.36 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what factors have led to the very marked increase in small savings, and whether they consider the improvement to be temporary or permanent. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the end of the last financial year—last March—the National Savings Movement had produced, over the preceding ten years, a very small surplus. On March 31, 1948, the total sum invested was £6,069 million, whereas at the corresponding date last March the total was £6,273 million, an increase of £204 million—and this at a time when the annual amounts of accrued interest have been running up to £130 million a year; so it is quite clear that in new money the National Savings Movement over that ten years was very much in deficit.
To-day the position of a Government is very different from what it was before the war. The incubus of the nationalised industries and responsibility to a larger extent for local authority finance has meant that inability to borrow on the requisite scale is a most embarrassing matter for the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One can almost liken it to the late Mr. Ernest Bevin's coal. He said that given so many million tons of coal he could transform the face of Europe. I believe that Chancellors of the Exchequer over these last ten years would equally have been able to say, "Given so many hundreds of millions of pounds sterling of savings, I can transform the British economy".
The tide seems to have turned last year, and in the first forty-six weeks of this financial year the sum invested has gone up by no less than £270 million of which £223 million is entirely new money. I am glad to see that Premium Bonds, in which I have always had great faith, have played at least their share. Surpluses each week are running at anything from £5 million to £15 million, so it looks as though in this financial year £300 million at least will be achieved; and if we go on at this rate through next year it may well be that we shall achieve something in the order of magnitude of £400 million.
To a Government treading the narrow path between the precipices of inflation and deflation the resurgence of these small

475
savings is probably one of the most important economic factors of the day, and it could have the most interesting repercussions on budgeting now and in the future. For that reason it is vitally important that we should know more about this resurgence—where it is coming from and what has caused it—so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other authorities may get an idea whether or not this is going to become a permanent feature of our economy. One must remember that this movement is against the trend, because trustees, whether they be of the Church or the trade unions or private individuals, are still tending to be equity-minded as against gilt-edged minded; and the new unit trusts have been selling units very successfully at a time when this National Savings Movement has been resurging. So the whole position is really rather mysterious, and most welcome.
I have no right of reply to an Unstarred Question, so I will say now that I hope the reply will show that the Government are taking this matter very seriously. If a commercial firm were dependent for their livelihood and existence on a market of this size they would spare no expense to go in for the best market research to discover how permanent that market was. The ability to forecast National Savings is so important in a world where a Chancellor of the Exchequer tries to balance Budgets overall—above the line and below the line—with savings, in the avoidance of inflation and deflation, that I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing his utmost to get the best possible intelligence; and I eagerly wait to hear some results which may fall from the lips of my noble friend.
4.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my noble friend has made some observations, with which I think your Lordships will generally agree, about the great importance of savings to our national economy, particularly in relation to the great problem of inflation and, of course, that of unemployment. But his Question on the Paper, his requests for information and the figure which he quoted just now on the increase which had taken place in National Savings, related to only a section of the whole field; that is, the small savings, which are comprised under National Savings Certificaes,
476
Defence Bonds, Premium Bonds, Post Office Savings, and so on. I do not think there has been a corresponding increase, comparable to the figure which he gave for small savings, in the volume of National Savings as a whole, which of course is the important thing if we are considering this matter in relation to our whole national economy.
But what my noble friend has asked in his Question—and it is, I think, a very important point—is what factors have led to this marked increase in small savings and whether the Government consider that the improvement will be permanent or not. The increase in the level of personal savings was very marked last year. As my noble friend said, the total invested in all forms of National Savings has increased by some £260 millions. While it is impossible to judge exactly which factors have led to this good result, I think that probably the measures announced in the last Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have had a good deal to do with it; that is to say, first, the raising of the limit of holdings of National Savings Certificates to 1,000 units. That has enabled—in fact, encouraged—people who had already reached the legal limit to put more money into them. Then there was the issue of the new Defence Bonds with a limit of £2,000. These two new factors—first the raising of the limit of holdings of National Savings Certificates and the issue of this new class of Defence Bonds—have, I think, encouraged a great deal of this kind of investment during the last twelve months.
The total increase allows for a decrease in the amount of Post Office savings. But, of course, a certain amount of this new saving has come from ordinary commercial bank deposits. Last year particularly, owing to the high bank rate, interest on deposits was at such an abnormally high level that people had more incentive to leave their money on deposit in commercial banks instead of putting it into these various National Savings schemes. That is the third factor. The first was an increase in the holding limit for National Savings; the second was the issue of the new Defence Bonds; and the third that during last year the steady reduction in bank rate has meant that the interest on deposits has come down and therefore people have had more inducement to put their money

477
into National Savings, Defence Bonds, Premium Bonds, or anything which gives them a higher yield. One could, of course, mention a hundred other reasons which have contributed to this improvement and they would all be true. One cannot measure exactly the motives in a man's mind which caused him to save more in one year than he did in another, Some people may have been induced to save a little more because they thought that the value of the pound was less likely to go down. I do not know, but I think the main reasons are those which I have given.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, as I have no sight of reply may I ask him if he has any information whether weekly wage-earners are beginning to save more, either per head or in greater numbers?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think they are, my Lords, but I have not any statistics which have a bearing on that point. It would be extremely difficult to get statistics which would separate the savings of the small weekly wage-earner from the savings of other people. I think the only comprehensive figures which will be of any use to us in discussing these questions will be those which will no doubt be published, as usual, in the Economic Survey, which doubtless will deal, as it usually does, with the amount of national savings.
My noble friend was optimistic about the future trends of the small savings of which he was speaking, and seemed to hope that this increase of £260 million last year would be exceeded next year and again the year after. I hope that he may be right, but I think it would be unwise to count on the continuance during the next financial year of such an exceptionally favourable result as we had last year. There are indications that the results will again be satisfactory, but I do not think it is reasonable to expect that they will be progressively more and more satisfactory, because the special factors which operated last year cannot be considered as likely to keep recurring, I do not know what is going to be done about National Savings Certificates and Defence Bonds, but there is no reason to expect that new issues and further raisings of the limit will continue. When a new issue of Savings Certificates or Defence Bonds comes out, there is always a rush to invest in it, but that rush is apt to slow
478
down after a few months, and we cannot expect the momentum to continue indefinitely.
Then, with regard to the rate of interest, I am not at liberty to tell your Lordships whether—and, if so, when—the bank rate is going to be reduced again: and even if I were it would not help much, because I do not know. That is obviously one factor which governs the rate of these small savings; and when we consider that during the last year there has been an exceptional reduction from an exceptionally high level of the bank rate down to a level which is still high but not so exceptionally high, I do not know that we can look for the progressive continuance of that factor year after year in future. But, my Lords, although it would be unwise to count confidently on the continuance of this progressively favourable result, we think that the prospects for next year are likely to be satisfactory; and we are certainly grateful to my noble friend for raising this question and for the useful remarks that he has made about the great importance of saving to our national economy.
4.52 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships have listened with great interest both to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and also to the reply given by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I am afraid that neither of them has given us a great deal of enlightenment. I am not in the least blaming them, because I imagine that it is difficult to draw any very exact conclusions from the figures. However, what people would like to know, as Lord Hawke said, is whether the trend is likely to continue; and that, I quite agree with the noble Earl, is exceedingly difficult to prophesy. It is like the weather; it may be due to certain causes, it may be due to others. It may be due to things which we cannot foresee, and I should be sorry to have to try to forecast what is going to happen in the future.
The other thing which everybody would like to know is how far these small savings, as they are called, are the savings of small people—and that, I think, is still more uncertain. There are certain savings, such as those in the Trustee Savings Banks, which are, I imagine, mainly the savings of small people, because the larger people will not be bothered to have their money in that

479
particular form. But when we come to Savings Certificates, they, of course, appeal particularly to very wealthy people who do not need to use their income and who have the desire to escape income tax and surtax—because, in effect, they are a very good means of locking up a certain amount of money which does not deteriorate and on which there is paid no income tax or surtax. Therefore, when we come to Savings Certificates, and I think some other types of so-called small savings, it is not the poorer people but the wealthier people who greedily pick up any new issue that comes along. I am not using the word "greedily" in any derogatory sense, but they willingly welcome the new issues.
On the other hand, I think there is evidence, particularly when we take the Trustee Savings Banks into account, that saving to-day is largely being taken up by the smaller folk, and that whereas in days gone by the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the income tax in the hope that that would result in large savings by the wealthy, it is now found that some of the most important sources of savings come from the manual workers' efforts; and that is of very great importance.
There is another source of dubiety, as was pointed out by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. A great number of people are now investing in equities, and, that being so, the amount of small savings that goes into these particular Government securities is only a very partial guide to what is happening. The really important question between the small and the big saver is how far their savings are really adequate to meet the investment, public and private, which is going on; and it would be a great help if the Government were to find themselves able to issue a White Paper. It may be that the Economic Survey is the answer, but I do not know how far that gives us all the facts required; I imagine that it can hardly do so. Perhaps the noble Earl will represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that any information which could be made available, showing from what sources it is conjectured or believed that these savings arose, and marking them out in the different forms which the investments take, would be of great interest to people who are concerned with the welfare of the economic system of the country.

PURCHASE TAX ON SECOND-HAND JEWELLERY
4.57 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER LORD GRANTCHESTER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the reasons for, and what is likely to be the effect of, Notice No. 77K, dated February, 1959, issued by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, relating to purchase tax on second-hand gem jewellery. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the notice which has been issued by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and to which I have ventured to draw your Lordships' attention, affects all those who are engaged or employed in the jewellery trade. There are throughout the country, I believe, some 5,000 firms, small and large, wholesalers or retailers, or both; possibly another 5,000 dealers trading on their own account, and some hundreds of manufacturers. There is in this trade no very clear demarcation between different categories of traders. The term "whole-saler" is somewhat of a misnomer: perhaps "factor" would be a more accurate description, as so much business is done between one firm and another. A shopkeeper may buy a lot, out of which he may choose a few items from his stock: the remainder he may pass to an intermediary, to sell to a retailer in another part of the country where, possibly, the taste is rather different; other pieces may go into the export market.
My Lords, London is still the principal market for unset stones, but the manufacture of designed and decorative jewellery in this country is insignificant. This trade, which was formerly an important part of the jewellery business, has been virtually killed by purchase tax. There is, I suppose, no limit to the anomalies and curiosities of purchase tax; the jewellery trade provides a few examples. Perhaps I may mention one. Unset stones are not liable to purchase tax, and so, if you buy a diamond for, say, £1,000, and want to spend £50 mounting it into a ring, purchase tax is payable not on £50 but on £1,050. In consequence, this part of the trade, which is not unimportant in relation to the tourist and foreign visitor, has passed to centres like Paris, Rome and New York, where craftsmen still find employment. The poorness of the display in London is one of the characteristics on which visitors comment, and it certainly loses this country

481
business which otherwise would come our way. Practically the whole business which is done now in mounted jewellery is in second-hand pieces which come on the market. This trade is now threatened by the action of the Customs and Excise Department in the notice to which I am drawing your Lordships' attention.
The authority under which purchase tax is levied was originally Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1940, now replaced, I think, by Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1944. This section was very widely drawn and only an understanding reached with the trade has made it workable. In effect, the understanding has been that purchase tax should not be charged on second-hand articles. I do not think that in any trade purchase tax is levied on second-hand goods, perhaps for the very good reason that if it were it would be paid many times on the same article.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships by going into the details of the notice to which I have drawn attention; but, briefly stated, its effect is to make purchase tax payable on second-hand jewellery when it comes into the hands of a wholesale trader. That would mean, for instance, discrimination in favour of a private buyer at an auction sale, as opposed to a dealer in the trade. As your Lordships are fully aware, there are important sales of jewellery held in London, part of the very valuable art business which is done in our famous London auction rooms. Noble Lords will appreciate the confusion which would be introduced by having to discriminate as regards the payment of purchase tax between one buyer and another. This notice, if I may say so, is a deadly blow against London as the principal centre in the world for the sale of art treasures and valuable jewellery.
May I read a few words from the opening sentence of this Order, as it purports to disclose the reasons for its issue. I will abbreviate, so far as possible, the sentence:
"The Commissioners of Customs and Excise announce that owing to serious abuse of … the concession under which secondhand goods are permitted to be sold free of purchase tax, they are obliged to withdraw the concession from articles of gem jewellery with effect from the 1st of March 1959."
First I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who is to reply to this Question, to give the evidence of what is
482
referred to as "serious abuse". For instance, how many prosecutions have there been? How many convictions have been secured? What is the proportion of those who are alleged to have abused the concession to the number of persons engaged in the trade? I think that we should have plain answers from the noble Earl to these simple questions. When he has answered them I would ask whether he considers that collective punishment of a group of traders, which also affects the general public who have any second-hand jewellery they may want to sell, is a conception of British justice of which he approves. I suggest that it is not likely to find much favour in this country.
I imagine that this notice has been issued by some over-zealous official, possibly without reference to the Treasury at all, and without any idea of the disturbance and other consequences likely to follow from the notice. The existing arrangements have been working for some fifteen years, and here is a notice which upsets these arrangements, issued in February to come into operation on March 1. If the Minister is not prepared to withdraw this unfortunate notice straight away, I would press him most strongly to postpone its operation until full consideration can be given, in consultation with the trade, to the consequences to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention.
5.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, began by pointing out that this is a question which affects all the firms—I think he mentioned the number of 5,000—employed in the jewellery trade in the whole country. He will be aware, of course, that the withdrawal of this concession has resulted from representations made a year ago, and on many other occasions, by the firms who manufacture and sell new jewellery, which is subject to purchase tax, who have found that they are being gravely injured because they are being undercut and undersold by new jewellery falsely stated to be second-hand, which thus escapes purchase tax and draws their legitimate and honest trade away from them.
When these complaints were made and strongly pressed in another place, in the form of Questions and also of a debate

483
on the Adjournment a year ago, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very reluctant to take any action. He pointed out that he could not do so unless there was better evidence, but he promised to inquire into the matter. Since then, extensive inquiries have been carried out by the Customs and Excise, who have found that these malpractices are very widespread indeed. It is not so much a question of injuring the Revenue, because, as your Lordships will easily see, there are considerations on both sides when we consider how much tax is to be paid or lost; but it is a very serious question of honest jewellers being injured by dishonest ones.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the conclusion that the only way to deal with this was not to impose a new tax—the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, rather spoke of this as the imposing of a new tax—but simply to withdraw a concession which has hitherto been given in respect of second-hand jewellery. As your Lordships know, that applies only to jewellery which is not more than one hundred years old; antique jewellery of a greater age is altogether outside the scope of purchase tax. The class of jewellery which benefited from this concession was secondhand jewellery not more than one hundred years old.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Earl has used the word "concession". Has there ever been a purchase tax on secondhand jewellery?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am not sure whether it has ever been collected, but it has been imposed by Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is permitted to make the concession, which I think he has always done. I do not think purchase tax has been collected, either on second-hand jewellery or on other second-hand articles; but it has been approved by Parliament, and we should not require legislation in order to impose it.
LORD STONHAM: Is this not in the nature, not of a concession but of an exemption from an order relating to second-hand jewellery? Can the noble Earl say whether the withdrawal of that exemption now means that if a member
484
of the public sells second-hand jewellery to another member of the public, neither being dealers, purchase tax will have to be paid?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No; it affects only licensed dealers. As to the terminological point, I dare say that "exemption" is a better word than "concession".
The noble Lord naturally wanted to know why it was necessary to take such a drastic comprehensive step as withdrawal of exemption in order to deal with a certain number of cases of dishonesty. I cannot agree with the noble Lord in using the word "punishment"; I do not regard the withdrawal of an exemption as a punishment. It is simply a measure designed to make the intentions of Parliament effective; that is all. The question is: Could the purpose of Parliament have been made effective in some simpler way—for instance, by detecting and prosecuting everybody who had made false statements representing that new jewellery was second-hand jewellery? In order to obtain legal evidence to justify a prosecution in a case of this kind, it is necessary to take a great deal of trouble, and the process is extremely laborious and lengthy. I am not, of course, going to give any indication of the number of prosecutions which may result.
The noble Lord asked how many prosecutions there have been. The answer is that there have not been any yet; but how many there may be when the investigations of the Customs have been completed it would not be in the public interest to disclose. The point is, however, that my right honourable friend did not think, having regard to the difficulty of getting evidence, that the threat or likelihood of prosecutions—even if there were one or two—would be sufficient to put an end to this widespread malpractice. He felt that the only way of doing it was to withdraw the concession, which will certainly adversely affect a number of people. It will no doubt mean that some people will get less for their second-hand jewellery; and, on the other hand, that people who have to buy second-hand jewellery may have to pay more for it. My right honourable friend considered that it was better that that should be so than that honest traders should continue to be injured and undersold by the false representation of new

485
jewellery masquerading as old jewellery taking away their legitimate trade.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but does he really suggest to us that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are entitled to refer to "serious abuse" if, after extensive investigation which he says has been carried on for a period of more than a year, they have not found one case with sufficient evidence to prosecute?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think the noble Lord has been listening to what I said. What I said was that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the number of prosecutions which will presumably take place when these inquiries have been completed.
The noble Lord asked whether, if the Government would not withdraw this Order, they would at least consider deferring it. All I would say in regard to that is that the auctioneers, who, although this tax does not apply to auctions, may be indirectly affected by it—that is, Christies and Sotheby's—are making representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right honourable friend stated in another place this afternoon, in reply to a supplementary question, that he was willing to consider whether his decision might be deferred until he had had further opportunity of studying the representations which are now being made to him by the auctioneers. In view of that undertaking, which I happened to hear because I went up to your Lordships' Gallery in order to listen to it, I would rather not say anything more on the subject now.
486
But I am sure your Lordships would like to know that my right honourable friend has given that undertaking—not a definite undertaking to postpone it, but to consider whether he will postpone it until he has had more opportunity of studying the representations which are now being made to him by the auctioneers.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I should like to thank the noble Earl for that assurance, and I would ask him to ask his right honourable friend whether he will also include, in considering the representations, not only Christies and Sotheby's, but the Association of Jewellers.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will consider all representations. I was only making plain the distinction between the interests of the auctioneers and those of the ordinary licensed dealers.

CALVINISTIC METHODIST OR PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF WALES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.] RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [H.L.] ROYAL WANSTEAD SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
Committed to an unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past five o'clock.