Lords Sitting of 6 December 1960

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

REPAYMENT OF EGYPTIAN HARDSHIP LOANS
2.35 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: 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 what is their policy in regard to recovering from claimants with assets in Egypt all or any portion of the loans advanced to them by Her Majesty's Government on the grounds of hardship; and if, in fact, such repayment is being insisted upon, upon what moral ground this is done, seeing that these so-called loans amount in fact to enforced capital expenditure by these unfortunate British subjects.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government remains the same as slated by the Lord President of the Council on July 29, 1959, in answer to a question by the noble Lord. The Lord President made it clear that such loans were prima facie repayable, but Her Majesty's Government were aware that
2
there might be cases where strict insistence on this general right of recovery would create serious hardship, and would be prepared in certain cases to remit the whole or part of the obligations to repay.
The recipients of these loans have recognised that fact that they are repayable, by their individual undertakings to repay them. It seems to me, therefore, to be fully in accordance with the terms on which the loans were made that part of them should now be repaid by deductions from compensation payments due to claimants. I can nevertheless assure the noble Lord that any cases of real hardship will be considered on their merits and that the greatest possible regard will be paid to the circumstances of those concerned.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his Answer, which leaves the situation as it was before. I would ask him whether he is aware that there are quite a number of cases where the total amount of the interim award has been retained in payment of the loans. I must not make a speech, but, if I may quote, I have three cases here. In the first case, the loan was £10,000; there was an interim award of £6,300 and the amount deducted was £5,600, leaving, therefore, £700 only in the hands of the claimant, who, meantime, in Egypt has a claim of £100,000 which, of course, he cannot touch. That is the first case. Then there is the case of Mr. B.—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD KILLEARN: May I not quote these? They are very important to these people.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think that what the noble Lord must do is ask a supplementary question.
LORD KILLEARN: I am working up to it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope the noble Lord will work himself up quickly.
LORD KILLEARN: Give me another five minutes and I will work up to it. I want to get these on record. Mr. B. received an ex gratia payment of £7,500; his interim payment from the Foreign Compensation Commission was £1,207, but this was withheld in full in part repayment of loan. He has assets in Egypt assessed at £30,000, which he cannot touch. Mr. B., in writing to the Secretary of State, used these words:
"The first of my Egyptian assets liberated, you grab the lot".
In the third case, which is my last case, the amount of ex gratia loan was £7,500; the interim payment awarded was £840 but this was withheld in full in part repayment of loan; the assets in Egypt are valued at approximately £16,000. Those are three cases where they really have received practically nothing. To come to my supplementary question—I apologise for the introduction—we have received countless assurances in the other place and here of generous treatment to these unfortunate people.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord really must sooner or later ask a question. He cannot entirely ride roughshod over the procedure of the House in this way.
LORD KILLEARN: Could an assurance be given that deductions will not be made without careful consideration of the circumstances until claimants have recovered sufficient of their assets lost in Egypt for their livelihood in the United Kingdom? These people have to live. The noble Earl is sitting on that Bench. It is all very well, but for these unfortunate people it is a question of life and death. I will not be put upon. I am sorry.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have rather forgotten the beginning of the noble Lord's supplementary question. I think the three cases that he quoted are, in fact, the only three out
4
of the lot, but I will check up on that. I have assured him—and I mean this—that where there is any case of hardship the case will be considered on its merits with the greatest possible regard to the circumstances of those concerned, and I deliberately chose those words because I mean those words. The loan system was based on people having actual resources, and in some cases they have got back their assets in full. But each individual case must be looked at on its merits. I will look at the three cases which the noble Lord has brought to my attention, just to make sure that every regard has been paid to the circumstances of those concerned.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the reply of the noble Earl, could I ask this question? As at present the claimant is left to face the Treasury. Would the Minister consider asking that there should be, as it were, a standard of compassion in remitting these advances, to the extent that a man has had to use his capital for current living during the period until he is called upon to repay his advance from monies received. That is to say, supposing he got £10,000 and had had to spend £6,000 in living for four years, not more than £4,000 would be claimed back as repayment—some such standard as that, in order that the claimants should know where they are, rather than be left to the blank mercy of the Treasury.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should not like to have a standard of compassion, I think, because in some oases the individual case is what matters and you cannot apply a standard. But I will consider what my noble friend has said. I personally have not looked into these cases. I will have another look at the three that the noble Lord has mentioned. But I hope that we shall be allowed to administer this in a compassionate way, as it is being administered now.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in recognising the helpful replies of the noble Earl and also the difficulty of the administration that he has referred to, and sensing, I think, the compassionate feeling of the House in these difficult cases, would he not think it possible, in seeking some standard of consideration for these unfortunate individuals,

5
that in addition to speeding up administrative machinery consideration should be given to the position of the other sector of the problem which the noble Lord referred to—namely, assets Egyptianised in Egypt?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes, my Lords; I will consider all the points that have been put to me. But I do want to treat these cases individually because no two cases are alike, and very generous treatment may be given to one case whereas another claimant may be able to pay back more of the money which has been advanced. I will certainly consider what noble Lords have said because I have a deep feeling in this matter myself.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl very much for the friendly way in which he has received these representations? I am most grateful.

DISTRIBUTION OF EGYPTIAN COMPENSATION
LORD KILLEARN: 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, in view of the recent statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that a further distribution by the Foreign Compensation Commission (out of the Fund of £27½ millions) is being considered, they would not consider it advisable to discuss the possible terms of this additional distribution with the representatives of the claimants.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are in constant touch with representatives of the claimants and their views have been most carefully taken into account in drawing up the terms of the further interim distribution which has been provided for in the Order in Council which was laid before your Lordships to-day. This Order makes certain technical amendments to the Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Interim Distribution) Order, 1959 and sets out a new scale for the payment of compensation to those claimants whose property was taken over by the Egyptian Government or sequestrated by them. It supersedes the scale
6
laid down in the 1959 Order, and provides for increased payments to those whose claims exceed £10,000. Under the new Order compensation will be paid at the following rates: 70 per cent. on the first £5,000 of each claim; 50 per cent. on the next £45,000 of each claim; 25 per cent. on the next £450,000 of each claim, and 20 per cent. on all amounts over £500,000. This new scale will benefit the middle and larger claimants who, under the original scale, received a much smaller percentage than those with claims below £10,000.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his full Answer. When I put down my Question, of course, I was not aware that we should have a new Order in Council so soon which largely answers the point I have raised. I should like to thank the noble Earl once more.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would it be possible for the noble Earl to give some indication as to the proportion of the total outstanding debt solely under the Egyptianised sector of the problem compared to the remainder still unpaid after the distribution to which he has referred, the details of which, in the absence of the White Paper, it is difficult for us exactly to assess?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not want to do more than make a guess, taking the Egyptianised and desequestrated property together. This distribution will amount to a good many millions, I think somewhere in the neighbourhood of £20 million; and up to now only £1½ million has been distributed.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask if it is to be understood, from the figures he has quoted, that the remainder to be distributed would give a small proportion to the larger claims of the outstanding Egyptianised assets? The figures he gave emphasised payment of a larger percentage of the small ones, and the larger ones would have but little left from which to get a distribution.
THE EARL OF HOME: Of course there will have to be a final distribution which we shall have to consider at the time. I was saying that I can only make a rough guess: and it might be a little more than £20 million or it might be

7
less. But when we come to the next distribution, then we shall have to consider what sum is available and how it should be distributed. I hope your Lordships will feel satisfied that, as I promised, we have done this as quickly as we could in the last few weeks, and I think that this will meet the point made to me by the noble Lord a week or two ago.

IMPORTS RESTRICTIONS BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES
2.48 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 if they will state what major importing countries have this year taken steps, or announced their intention of taking steps, to restrict imports or payments abroad with a view to improving their balance of trade or balance of payment position.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the United States have recently announced measures for reducing purchases abroad by Government agencies and restricting the purchase of foreign goods from funds provided by the International Co-operation Administration. India and the Union of South Africa have increased restrictions on imports with a view to improving their balance of payments. Venezuela has imposed exchange control on capital and current transactions.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to a leading article in the Financial Times of yesterday, suggesting that central bankers of the world are engaged in doing sums to show the payment position of their respective countries in the most unfavourable light, with the result that a great many countries of the world are going to be able to claim that they have a debit balance with the rest of the world? Is this situation not Gilbertian and dangerous?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing my attention to this article, which actually states that it is beginning to look as if nearly all the countries in the world are simultaneously in deficit with each other. I have not quite worked that out yet, but I do not think it arises directly out of the Question. I will certainly look into it, however, and I thank my noble friend for raising the matter.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference in Paris a fortnight ago, when representatives of the N.A.T.O. Parliaments called on their Governments to free trade from restriction and try to liberalise it in every possible way?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my attention had not been drawn to that particular matter but a number of countries have relaxed import restrictions during 1960, including Australia, France, Ghana, Malaya, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Sweden and the United Kingdom
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make clear to those countries that have recently imposed restrictions that no country could have more reason to justify imposing restrictions than the United Kingdom, but that we have deliberately refrained from doing so because we did not want to re-start the international game of "Beggar my neighbour"?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend has correctly given the reason for our action.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the present state of affairs—and I am thinking especially of the balance of payments —in order to prevent us from simply going on piling up a deficit? At the moment they seem to be letting things drift. What do they propose to do about it?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, what we are trying to do is to encourage exports.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Well, well!

PUBLIC FUNDS FOR MOTOR INDUSTRY EXPANSION
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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 if they will state the gross amount of public funds they are committed to supply towards the expansion plans of the motor industry, the terms of such advances and the enactments under which such advances are being made.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are committed to provide assistance, in the form of grants, loans and building of factories on amortisation terms, to the value of £31 million towards the expansion plans of the motor industry. They have also indicated that they would be prepared to give assistance for certain other projects, but the amounts have not yet been determined. The terms on which assistance is given are settled with individual firms. It would not be proper for me to disclose details of such arrangements. This assistance is given under the Local Employment Act, 1960, which is the only relevant enactment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, but may I ask him why it is considered wrong to disclose the individual allocations of money and the terms, when Her Majesty's Government have set a precedent in giving Parliament the full disclosure not only of the mortgage arrangements but also of the loan arrangements in connection with the Cunard Company? Why does this procedure vary from that, and why cannot we have this information? Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Earl to be kind enough to tell the House whether these loans are irrevocable. In other words, if the Government come to the conclusion that the economic conditions are such that the products of these expansion plans will not be able to be sold, will they make every effort, first, to see they are sold or, secondly, to see that public money is not wasted in building capacity which is not necessary?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in reply to the first supplementary ques-
10
tion, I can only say that it has always been the practice under the Distribution of Industry Act not to make individual disclosures of what is done, and I do not think we can debate the reasons for that at Question Time. With regard to the second supplementary question from the noble Lord, I have always been in the habit, all my life, of hearing Governments criticised for not doing nearly enough about the distribution of industry, and it is a little odd to me to hear them criticised for doing too much.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, as a matter of fact, the loan which was made on very favourable terms to Colvilles was not out of relation to the objective of the Distribution of Industry Act, although it may not have been done exactly under that Act; that is to say, there were other claimants in the steel industry for such grant, but Colvilles were given it because it was thought that employment would benefit more from it in Scotland than in other areas? In that case Her Majesty's Government gave the full facts—the most favourable rates of interest—and disclosed it all to Parliament. Why not in these cases?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this was a loan to Colvilles, not a grant and as the noble Viscount rightly says, it was not made under the Distribution of Industry Act. It certainly is related to the general policy of Her Majesty's Government of trying to create more employment and a better distribution of industry in that part of Scotland, but it was not done under the machinery of the Local Employment Act, and, as I have said, it is the practice of the Board of Trade not to make disclosures of individual grants under that Act.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, then may I ask the noble Earl whether I am to take it from his reply that these advances are on straight mortgage, amortised in the usual way, carrying the usual rate of interest, and carrying the usual security with which mortgages are commonly endowed? Secondly, may I ask him if he misunderstood my second supplementary question —because he did not reply to it. I was not criticising the generosity of Her Majesty's Government or their policy. I asked him a plain question: are these

11
advances irrevocable, or can they be withdrawn by the Government at any time the economic state of the industry does not warrant going ahead with these expansion plans?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I take the second part of the noble Lord's question first? The loans are repaid by the people to whom they are made. There is no question of withdrawing them. If a grant is given, I do not think that that can be withdrawn. It is given to persuade an industry to go into a Special Area. The reason why a grant is given is that the industry is presumed to suffer some loss by not going somwhere else—,into a conurbation. With regard to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, I believe that I have already answered it: the assistance is in the form of grants, loans and building of factories on amortisation terms. There are all these different methods under the Act of inducing industries to go where we want them to go.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Earl would agree, would he not, that this is a very serious and important thing. And while we are given to understand that the reason for this assistance in these expansion plans is to "mop up" pockets of unemployment, if the industry cannot go ahead with those plans it will not "mop up" the pockets of unemployment. I was suggesting to the noble Earl—and perhaps he would give me the assurance that Her Majesty's Government will take this point into consideration—that it might be as well to see that the restrictions which the Government have placed on this industry, preventing its expansion, might at the same time be relaxed to allow these expansion plans to fructify.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this rather sounds as if we are getting into a debate on the Local Employment Act. I would not accept the noble Lord's statement that the object of the Act is simply to "mop up" a few pockets of unemployment. Its purpose is to achieve a better distribution of industry in such areas as Scotland, South Wales, the North-East of England and Merseyside.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the noble Earl in his first reply to the Question
12
mentioned a very substantial sum as being granted out of public funds to this one industry under the Act. Could the noble Earl indicate what is the character of the tribunal or committee who decide the competing claims of different industries to the distribution of public funds under this Act? Secondly, would the noble Earl indicate whether these contributions are confined to buildings and land only or extend also to equipment?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the Advisory Committee set up under the Act to advise my right honourable friend, as the noble Lord may perhaps remember, is the Board of Trade Advisory Committee for this purpose, and the grants or loans which may be made under the Act may take the form either of the building of a factory by the Government or of a loan or grant to enable the industry to set itself up. I think these are all questions which, if I may respectfully say so, could be answered by reading the Act itself.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I take it, from listening to all the answers that have been given, that the Government have no proposals at all to deal with either the short time, or in some cases the unemployment, in the motor industry in the factories of those firms which are to expand in these areas under the Distribution of Industry Act? It seems to me to be completely illogical unless the Government can do something to see that the towns in which they are at present producing are properly employed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should think it is a very encouraging thing that, in spite of the recession in the motor industry, they are nevertheless going ahead with the fullest confidence to build their new factories in the West of Scotland and Central Scotland and elsewhere.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With £31 million of the taxpayers' money.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: They are, nevertheless, in spite of this depression, going ahead with these plans in the confident expectation that the industrial results will justify them.

POLICE PAY
EARL, ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Bathurst will be making a statement on police pay at some appropriate moment after 3.30.
ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Pa tents and Designs (Renewals, Extensions and Fees) Bill this day through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, in the normal course of events one would have accepted this Motion without any comment, but there are special circumstances which have arisen which I think make it necessary for me to give the House some short history of the events leading up to the appearance of this Motion on the Order Paper. It arises, as the Motion says, on the Patents and Designs (Renewals, Extensions and Fees) Bill, which some weeks ago was introduced into this House as, largely, a non-controversial matter to ratify a Convention arrived at in Lisbon. But it contained a provision which some of us, on both sides of the House, thought inappropriate in a measure of this kind: a provision which enabled the Board of Trade, by Order, to lay down and vary from time to time the fees which were to be charged on patents.
On the Second Reading I took some objection to this provision. I thought that the combination of those two was inappropriate. But I thought that, if the Government insisted on retaining Clause 2 of the Bill, any Resolution for the variation of fees should be by way of an Affirmative Resolution of the House and not merely subject to a Negative
14
Resolution. I gave my justification for it. After all, these fees had remained in existence for something like 80 years. It was not likely that they would be altered frequently, and when they were altered, as they might be, I thought it was for the Government to make a case justifying the alteration of the fees and getting the approval of the House.
The noble Earl who was in charge of the Bill did not agree with this contention, and accordingly, by arrangement with the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, who had also taken this point, he and I agreed that I should put down an Amendment to delete Clause 2 and that he should put down an Amendment, the terms of which we agreed upon, requiring that any variation in fees should be approved by each House of Parliament The noble Earl refused to agree to either of those Amendments. I think that most Members of the House were not satisfied that his reasons were sound, and on the Committee stage I asked him whether he would not go back to his right honourable friend and discuss the matter with him and see whether he would not agree that the Amendment was a reasonable one. The noble Earl refused to do that. He signifies otherwise, but he did, I assure you. I thereupon gave him notice that, in those circumstances, I would put the same Amendment down on the Report stage, in the hope that he would think again about the matter and get the views of his right honourable friend; and I did put the Amendment down. Incidentally, the noble Earl informed me that there would be no Report stage at all. Well, he was mistaken about that. Hansard speaks for itself. I did not think that such facts as I was going to give would be contradicted by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord. I assumed that no one would want a Report stage. When the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he would want one I immediately said that if your Lordships wanted a Report stage, of course there would be one.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I will leave it at that. It now appears—I understand that this is the case—that the noble Earl has been authorised to accept an Amendment on the line that has been advocated from this side of the House right through the proceedings, and also

15
from the other side of the House. It is on that basis that we on this side have agreed that the Third Reading may follow the Report stage in the terms of this Motion. But I thought I ought to explain that.
My reason for making what might be regarded as "heavy weather" of the matter is this. The objective of all of us in this House, in these comparatively non-controversial measures, is not to make politics out of it but to improve the measures to the best of our ability. This is a minor measure, but on Thursday we are to deal with a major measure with some hundreds of Amendments, as the noble Earl will have seen —and he has not seen all the Amendments yet: there are some more to come. The noble Earl wants to get it through in three days. Speaking for myself, I am perfectly willing to co-operate. We do not want to make "heavy weather" of these Amendments, or to make politics out of the Bill: we are just out to improve the Weights and Measures Bill to the best of our ability and to send it to another place in a better form than it is at present. Our sole desire is to protect the consumer and do the best we can with the Bill; and that is a desire which is shared by every Member of this House who will be taking part in the discussions.
If the attitude of the noble Earl on those Amendments is going to be what it was on this Amendment, then I can assure him that he is going to have a very difficult time, and I cannot guarantee that he will succeed in getting the Bill through in the time that he has set himself. I am sorry to have to talk in this way, because it is not characteristic of the noble Earl, who is normally perfectly courteous and amicable in his dealings. But I felt that in this particular case he has been somewhat ungracious in not promising in terms to discuss the matter with his friends on an Amendment which seemed to many people a perfectly reasonable one.
I should have understood if, at the end of the day, the noble Earl had said that he had discussed it, and that his right honourable friend did not see his way clear to agree. I should have understood it, though I should not have agreed with it: but that would have been in
16
accordance with what I think has gradually become the tradition of this House. I therefore felt that I ought to raise the matter, partly for its own sake and partly because we are going to have a much greater experience of the ordinary give-and-take of Parliamentary Business during the next few days, and, unless it can be dealt with in a more gracious and helpful spirit, I am afraid that we shall not get through in the time the noble Earl has set himself.
3.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I must say that I think that the noble Lord who has just spoken has himself been a little ungracious in this matter. I rise to reply simply because I think it would be embarrassing for my noble friend to do so. Of course, it would have been quite improper for my noble friend to discuss in public the kind of consultations which have taken place between him and the Department which is responsible for this Bill, but I think I can say without impropriety that he has taken a very great deal of trouble in order to secure authorisation to accept an Amendment which he felt was in accordance with the wishes of the House, and in accordance with propriety. For that, the only thanks he gets from the noble Lord is something in the nature of a complaint that he has done something which he should not. My desire, of course, is that these Amendments should be examined in a purely uncontroversial way. But, having heard the noble Lord, I must say that I do not think it is much encouragement to my noble friend, who has taken a very great deal of trouble, and who has at last succeeded in getting for the noble Lord himself his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I want only to say this: that we are trying to do all we can to assist the Business of the House. As the Weights and Measures Bill has been mentioned, perhaps the noble Earl who acts as the head of the discussions in the usual channels will tell the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that we are doing what we can to facilitate extra time. We shall continue to do so, if we can be sure that we get reciprocation.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sure the noble Viscount can count entirely on any move on his part to facilitate

17
Business being fully reciprocated on the part of the Government, and I should like to thank him for his assurance.
LORD SILKIN: Might I ask the noble and learned Viscount: is it not the normal practice for the Minister who is in charge of a Bill in this House, if he thinks that a point is worthy of consideration, to say that he will discuss it with the Minister concerned in another place, on which assurance, very often, the Amendment is withdrawn? It is quite a common practice, and it was only because that practice was not adopted in this case that I made by complaint. If the noble and learned Viscount will make inquiries of some of his colleagues, he will find that it is quite a common practice.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am quite clear about this: that it would not be in accordance with practice for a Minister in charge of a Bill to make a reply to an Amendment which was not in accordance with the authority he had received from the Government.
LORD SILKIN: Of course not.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It might well be in accordance with practice for him, despite being unable to do that, to go back privately to his right honourable friend and to make representations, and to obtain a fresh authority; but he would not be entitled to say that publicly.
Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Bill to be considered on Report.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Craigton, who has become a casualty in "Operation Forth Bridge", and to whom we all wish a very speedy recovery and, perhaps, better luck in "Operation Tay Bridge", I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House how the noble
18
Lord, Lord Craigton, is getting on? I think we are all anxious to hear how he is. He must have had a very bad time.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I did inquire this morning. I gather that my noble friend is up, and that his condition does not give him concern. I am sure that your Lordships would wish me to convey your good wishes to him.
LORD SALTOUN: Thank you very much.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
3.16 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I have made certain inquiries, and I understand that it would be most convenient to your Lordships if I were to move this Bill formally. Of course, I shall be more than ready to deal in my reply with any points that are raised. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had informed the noble and learned Viscount that I should be saying a few words on this Bill. This is an annual Bill which provides for the continuance of certain measures from year to year. There are now a limited number of them, and I presume that in the case of each of the Acts referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum there is some special justification for continuing it in the form in which we are proposing to do it under this Bill. In another place there was some discussion about several of the

19
Acts, particularly the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. Admittedly, that Act has been amended from time to time, but it has now had a life of over 40 years, and the question has arisen of why it is necessary to go on renewing it from year to year; whether it could not now be taken for granted that it was proposed to restrict in certain measure the entry of aliens into this country, and why there could not be laid down by Regulation, which could be varied from time to time, the conditions under which they would be admitted. I myself do not think that the reply given was altogether satisfactory; and the same applies to a number of the other measures referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill.
My purpose in rising on this Bill this afternoon is not to object to it, but to ask the noble and learned Viscount, now that we are at the beginning of a new Session, whether he can tell the House what are the intentions of the Government about reducing the number of these measures. I recognise that some of them may be of a temporary character, and that it may be possible, in due course, to repeal them, on the ground that they are no longer necessary. But some of them have now established themselves, by process of time, and we can be quite certain that, so far as we can see ahead, these measures are of a permanent nature and, therefore, it seems to me, ought to be incorporated into the permanent legislation of this country. For these reasons I hope that the noble and learned Viscount can give us some explanation of the Government's intentions as regards these six measures that have been set out in the Explanatory Memorandum.
3.20 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the suggestion which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and which I myself had intended to raise, before I heard the noble Lord's speech. In the first place, the Aliens Restriction Act originally came into force, I believe, in 1914, and this Act of 1919 is an amending Act. I think it ought to be made an honest Act, so to speak, and be put on a permanent basis. It seems rather ridiculous that every year we in Parliament solemnly extend it for yet
20
another year. We all know perfectly well that aliens have to be restricted in this country in some way or other, and it seems rather nonsensical every year to pass an Act which continues the life of this Act.
As to the other Acts which are being extended, one refers to the enablement of children to gather the potato crop in Scotland if they are under a certain age. Presumably they will be growing potatoes in Scotland for a good many years—and I imagine the noble Earl, Lord Dundee will agree with that. If that is so, again I should have thought that it was a matter of policy which is likely to last for a number of years, and was not a matter which would come up from year to year. Three of the other Acts refer to tenancies of shops, furnished and unfurnished houses, apartments, and so on, I suggest that either those Acts should be repealed, or the Lord Chancellor should consolidate them with certain other measures of a more permanent nature which are already on the Statute Book. It is very irritating to have on the Statute Book a large number of these Acts dealing with various bits and pieces of a subject like rent control or furnished lettings, or matters of that nature. It would be much better if the Lord Chancellor, who is, as we know, going constantly through the various Statutes with a view to consolidation, could see his way clear to consolidate these three with other Acts already on the Statute Book.
Finally, there is the Licensing Act. This Act makes provision for coordinating the functions of licensing justices and local planning authorities in the redistribution of licensed premises in areas affected by serious war damage. It would seem as if this Act may be of a more temporary nature than any of the others, and it may be that in a short time we shall be able to get rid of this one altogether. There cannot be many more areas affected by serious war damage which have not already had plans prepared and ready for the licensing justices to approve. As a matter of fact, the provisions of this Act might, I should have thought, be embodied in more permanent legislation. I consider it is always a good thing for the licensing justices and the town planning authorities to get together

21
when licensed premises are being erected; in fact, I should have thought that that already was the position. I can hardly imagine that justices would ever grant a licence to a public house which had not been approved by the local planning authority. This Act is a little more doubtful, and probably the Lord Chancellor will say that it will soon be coming off the Statute Book altogether and we need not worry much about it. With that sole exception, I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that he might be able to do away with the necessity of this Bill in future years by incorporating the various Acts in the ordinary Statute Book.
3.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the manner in which they have raised an important point. I am not going to dispute the desirability of their general thesis, but I think it would be as well if I explained the circumstances which have kept these Acts in this Bill, and I will do so very briefly. With regard to aliens, as your Lordships know, the method by which this question is dealt with is that an order is made under the Act. A year or two ago the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I had an interesting debate on the merits of the administration and on improvements. I am not going to repeat to your Lordships the full account which my honourable and learned friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Home Office gave on the improvement which had been made—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has studied it—but I would just draw his attention to some points.
The first point is the extraordinarily small proportion of the 1,698,160 foreigners who came here in the year ended September 30 last who were refused entry. If I have it aright, only one out of every 650 was refused entry, and my honourable and learned friend gave a full breakdown of the reasons. The second point is the very small number who were deported. In 1958, 131 were deported; in 1959, 86 were deported; and in the first ten months of 1960, 93 were deported. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will remember that he suggested to me that there ought to be an advisory procedure. He will see
22
that the question of representation to the Chief Magistrate was dealt with by Mr. Renton, and it is an interesting point that, out of 67 people eligible to make representations, only 34 availed themselves of the opportunity. Thirty-one cases were heard, and in 26 of them the Chief Magistrate confirmed the proposal to deport; in 5 cases the reference prevented deportation. If I may quote my honourable and learned friend, he said that the reference to the Chief Magistrate has been regarded by us as a form of appeal against deportation, and respected as such.
The other point, which I am sure the noble Lord noted with both interest and appreciation, was on the question of registration. Remember that of the 400,000 foreigners in this country who are registered, there are two groups. The first group is those who wish to stay here longer than three months but whose stay is, nevertheless, on a temporary basis. Many of these are people on Ministry of Labour permits. The second and larger group concerns those whom we have accepted as residents here permanently or indefinitely. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has decided that the public interest does not now require this large group of people to be subject to the degree of supervision which police registration involves, and he has therefore decided that they should be exempt altogether from registration. I have put these points very shortly, and if any noble Lords are interested they will find all these matters dealt with at length in the speech of Mr. Renton in the Commons Hansard of November 16, 1960.
The point which I wanted to make to-day was that this procedure does allow flexibility and improvement. Nevertheless, I appreciate the points which both noble Lords had in mind: that this is a very important subject and is something whose ultimate form we ought to be considering. I shall, of course, convey that view to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I can assure the noble Lords that he will consider it.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on the Education (Exemptions) (Scotland) Act with regard to the use of children under fourteen for picking the potato crop, I

23
may say that that has been examined. It is the Secretary of State's intention to bring the exemption scheme to an end as soon as practicable. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, saw that on the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, in November, 1959, it was announced that the Government intended to discontinue the exemption scheme altogether after the 1962 Act. That announcement was generally welcomed. Actually the number who are required to be exempted from school attendance under the Act of 1960 will be 3,000 less than in 1959, and it is hoped to make similar reductions in the number of exemptions in 1961 and 1962, though the actual number must depend upon the weather. I think it is of some assistance to the noble Lord to know that that statement of present intention had been made.
With regard to the Tenancies of Shops (Scotland) Act, in January, 1958, a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Ian Shearer, Q.C., was appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider whether there was need to continue the provisions of the Act after December 31, 1958. The Committee found that there had been no significant decrease in the number of applications made under the Act since 1952 and that the Act continued to serve a useful purpose. They did not favour making the Act permanent, but they recommended that it should be continued after December 31. 1958, for a period not exceeding fiveyears. The returns for 1959 show that the Act is being extensively used. This, again, shows that we are not sitting down on this matter. We have had the matter examined and I am sure that the name of Mr. Ian Shearer conveys to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, the capacity of the instruments we are using to have it examined.
The Accommodation Agencies Act was introduced as a Private Member's Bill against fraudulent housing agencies which charged a fee for registering people's requirements and then supplied lists of vacant accommodation. We feel that at the moment the resettlement of tenants is given extra protection under the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act. 1958, and it should be continued. While the falling in of a substantial number of three-year tenan-
24
cies, which the noble Lord will remember, will mean that some tenants will seek new homes, it is thought that this protective Act should be continued during that difficult period. The Rent of Furnished Houses (Scotland) Act and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, really depend on the particular circumstances of the housing position to which I have just referred. Of course, we shall keep the position of the tribunals under regular review, but we feel that, in the circumstances, they ought to be continued for a further year.
Part II of the Licensing Planning Act has also been raised. I have an interest in this. I could have hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, would be here, because during the Coalition Government he had an unfortunate attack of influenza and deputed me to move the Second Reading of the Licensing Planning Bill, which I did. The Act makes special provisions for blitzed areas and also for those areas to which the population of blitzed areas has moved, and promotes the co-operation of the licensing justices and the local authorities. A number of operations under the Act are still going on. Following the debate last year in another place, in which Mr. Chuter Ede suggested that a report on the progress of licensing planning in the 28 areas should be obtained, the 28 licensing planning committees were asked to report progress in their areas. These reports show that though in most areas considerable progress has been made, there is a need for licensing planning to be continued in 24 areas. In at least four areas there is the probability that the orders designating the licensing planning areas could be revoked in the next four months. On the other point of the statutory framework, which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised, the Act was amended by the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946, and the Licensing Act, 1949, and these, with other Acts, were consolidated in Part II of the Licensing Act, 1958, so that we have done as much as we can to put the whole matter in convenient form. It is a question of working out administrative arrangements which are still usefully in being.
I am sorry to have taken so long, but I am entirely in sympathy with noble Lords in keeping watch on this form of

25
legislation, and I have tried, very shortly but I hope with sufficient outline, to give the reasons why these Acts are being continued. If there are any other points, I shall be pleased to write to noble Lords about them. Meantime, I hope that your Lordships' House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (JUDGES AND PENSIONS) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
3.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the statement of my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions that I read to your Lordships on November 2 covered a wide range of services, including war pensions. This Bill gives effect to those parts of my right honourable friend's statement concerning retirement pensions, widows' pensions and children's allowances, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and industrial injuries. The Bill follows the National Insurance Act, 1959, which your Lordships discussed in June of that year. Before that, we had had a much wider and fuller debate on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, about the White Paper on which the Bill was based. I doubt whether there is a great deal more to be said, either in explanation or in criticism of this present Bill, than has already been said on these occasions.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, on the Second Reading of the Bill expressed, if I may say so, with great fairness and moderation, the reasons why he and his Party did not like what was being proposed. The noble Lord then went on to say that since the measure was almost entirely of a financial character, he did not think it should be divided upon or discussed in any great detail by your Lordships' House. The main reason which the
26
noble Lord gave for not being pleased with last year's Bill was that he thought the amount of retirement pensions provided for and the general scale of the whole scheme was much too small, and that it was not at all in keeping with modern times. I expect that probably he will not regard the proposals in this Bill as anything more than a very short step, and perhaps, in his view, not quite in the right direction. The noble Lord assumed last year that insured wage-earners, as a whole, would be willing to pay substantially higher sums in insurance contribution in order that they might be assured, as a matter of right, of a substantial pension in their old age.
I think we should all like to find out, if we could, what is the maximum amount that we could raise in compulsory contributions under a pensions scheme without causing a large number of contributors to feel that we were interfering unduly with their right to spend their own money in their own way. In Germany there has lately been introduced a new State pensions scheme which provides for retirement pensions consisting of 60 per cent. of the average wages which the insured contributor has been earning. So that if we take our dividing line of a £9 wage, a contributor whose average wage had been £9 would become entitled to 60 per cent. of that —that is to say, between £5 and £6 as his retirement pension. The contributions paid by the worker alone under the German scheme—the employer pays a slightly larger amount, I think, and the Exchequer a proportionate contribution —is 7 per cent. of his wages in respect, of the retirement pension alone, and over 12 per cent. when you bring in other benefits, such as unemployment, widows' provision and so on.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am not clear whether the noble Earl has gone from the German scheme or whether he is still talking about that scheme.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have just begun to speak about the German scheme. What I was going to do, quite briefly, if it would interest the noble Lord, was to contrast the German scheme, its contributions and its benefits, with our own. I do not think it will take very long.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is quite all right.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The all-in contribution paid here in Great Britain under the National Insurance scheme is at present 9s. 11d. If you deduct the ls. 10d. worker's contribution for the National Health Service, and the 8d. he is now paying to the Industrial Injuries Fund, which is a separate fund, that leaves an amount of 7s. 4d. That is not divided up by the Government actuary between retirement pensions, widows' pensions and unemployment benefit, so we cannot give the exact proportions perhaps the retirement pension might be about two-thirds, but that is not actuarially worked out. Anyhow, it is much less than the 12s. 7d. which the contributor earning £9 a week would be paying on the basis of the German scheme for retirement pension alone, and the 21s. 6d. which he would be paying for all the comparable benefits—retirement, widow's and unemployment.
If you take the top-grade wage under our graduated scheme of £15, the contribution in Germany for these benefits would amount to 36s. a week. I would certainly not consider that a sum of 21s. 6d. on a £9 wage or of 36s. on a £15 wage was too much to spend on savings and social insurance combined. But it does not leave an awful lot for other kinds of saving on which the insured person might prefer to spend his money. When I say "other kinds of saving", I am not thinking of the private occupation insurance schemes—although from the way it is going at the moment it looks as if about 3 million members of such schemes are likely to contract out of the State graduated scheme—and I am not thinking only of National Savings: I am thinking of private insurance companies whose benefits are more flexible, and to some people perhaps more desirable, than would be possible under a State scheme; I am thinking also of provision for the purpose of buying a house, which a great many workers nowadays want to do, and of investment by weekly wage-earners in industry in equity shares, which I know many of your Lordships are particularly anxious to encourage.
We have to bear in mind the need for not taking away from the wage-earner money which he would prefer to spend
28
on something which he thinks will suit him better. It is true, of course, that in all income groups there are some people who are improvident—I am sure that many of us are; and sometimes we find it difficult even to live within our incomes, let alone save anything—and it may well be argued that by compelling an improvident man to pay a substantial part of his income in insurance contributions in order that he may have a substantial pension in his old age you are acting, in the long run, for his own good, provided that he lives long enough to receive the pension. But it is undoubtedly true that you have to balance that against the freedom which you take away from provident people who want to spend their money on other things. It may perhaps be that the German wage-earners are possibly a little more accustomed than the British wage-earners to be told by a paternal Government what is good for them.
Many of the most eminent social reformers in this country, including the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, in his Report, have sometimes sought to establish same agreed relationship between the actual amount of retirement pension and some notional standard of subsistence. It is, of course, difficult to define or to agree about any figure which constitutes a standard of subsistence. The figure of 24s., mentioned in the Beveridge Report was, of course, not intended to be permanent for all time.
The Trades Union Congress this year were told by the General Council that they were putting forward to the Government a proposal for a new standard of retirement pensions which would be based on what was now being received by elderly people from National Assistance. The scale put forward as the basis of discussion was, for a single person, 68s. 6d., and for a married couple 103s. 6d. I think the basis of calculation was this: that the T.U.C. members who had gone into this matter took the 85s. which is payable at present to a married couple as a basic National Assistance rate, plus a figure of 18s. 6d. which they took as the average rent paid by an aged married couple receiving National Assistance, giving a total of 103s. 6d. I do not think they allowed for the discretionary extra payments, averaging 7s. 6d. which I think, in many

29
cases, are given by the National Assistance Board to people in these circumstances. That would have brought the total to over 110s. But even that would now be a little out of date, because next Monday your Lordships will be asked to approve the new National Assistance Regulations which raise the basic rate for a married couple to 90s.; so that the new rate with the extras and rent might be put at 115s.
If you are to fix a statutory retirement pension on that basis, you are coining pretty near to your figure of £6. I have not tried to work out what the contributions would be, but I imagine they would be little short of the figure of 21s. which is paid by the £9 German worker. I have no doubt at all that, in all future reviews of our pension structure in this country, people will have some regard to what is considerecl to be at the time a reasonable subsistance standard. Our ideas on that subject keep on changing, and I suppose that the amounts actually paid by the National Assistance Board are the best rough-and-ready guide we can get.
Your Lordships will remember that in paragraph 34 of the 1958 White Paper it is stated that pensions will be reviewed from time to time. Your Lordships have often pressed me to confirm that it was the Government's intention to do this, which of course I was able to do, although I do not know whether any of us thought at that time that the pensions would actually be reviewed before the date at which the 1959 Act takes effect—that is to say, in four months from now. I have no doubt that that will always be one consideration. But I think it is likely that an even stronger consideration will be the amount which we think the normal British wage-earner is willing to pay in contributions without feeling that he is being unduly impeded from using his savings to acquire property or to invest in any kind of project which he thinks will be more advantageous to him than paying more contributions in order to get a larger pension at the end of his life. I think you must always try to balance the one thing against the other as well as you can.
At present, as your Lordships know, the all-in contribution is 9s. 11d., of which about 7s. 4d. applies to those
30
matters contained in this Bill, excluding Industrial Injury, which has a separate fund. Under the 1959 Act, the wage-earner's basic contribution would have been reduced from 9s. 11d. to 8s. 4d. next April. Under this Bill, in order to provide for the rise in basic flat-rate pensions, the contribution is being increased on each side—from the employer and from the worker—and this will put back the contribution to 9s. 1ld., exactly where it was before. But there are some small adjustments which have been made, partly owing to the strong financial position of the Industrial Injuries Fund, with the result that the flat-rate contribution under this Bill will be only 9s. 9d. instead of 9s. 11d. That will come into effect at the beginning of next April.
The graduated contributions over and above that are left exactly as they were—that is to say, 4 ¼per cent. from each side on the excess of wages over the figure of £9 a week, rising to a maximum, as it will be now under this Bill, of 14s. 10d. from the insured person on a wage of £15. The flat-rate contribution for those who have contracted out, which was 1s. 7d. higher than the ordinary flat-rate contribution, under the 1959 Act would have been 9s. 11d. It will now, as a result of the flat-rate element being raised, be at a figure of 11s. 4d. That again will be exactly equal to the amount of flat-rate plus graduated contribution paid by an insured person who is earning a wage of £11 a week. So the situation is that in all these respects the relationship between contracted-in and contracted-out contributions will be exactly the same as it was before, and this Bill will not affect the calculations of anybody who is now considering whether or not it would be advantageous to contract out of the State graduated scheme.
As for the benefits, I read those out to your Lordships from my right honourable friend's statement a month ago. The retirement pension is being raised by 7s. 6d. for a single person and 12s. 6d. for a married couple, so that the single rate will now be 57s. 6d. and the rate for a married couple will now be 92s. 6d. Similar increases are being made in other benefits which are paid at the same rate as the retirement pension—that is, unemployment and sickness benefit; and corresponding increases are

31
being made in other kinds of pensions. The widowed mother, for example, will receive, first, her own increase of 7s. 6d., making her own pension in her own right 57s. 6d. In respect of her children she receives substantial increases. She is now getting 20s. for the first two and 22s. for the others, including family allowances. Under the Bill she will receive 25s. for the first two and 27s. for all the others.
I have forgotten for the moment whether it is four or five increases which have been made before this since the National Insurance came in—I rather think it is five up to 1958. The last one was in January, 1958. And most of those increases were taken up by rises in the cost of living. From the beginning of the scheme until 1958 the single person's benefit had gone up from 26s. to 50s.; it will now go up to 57s. 6d. The married couple's benefit had gone up from 42s. to 80s. and will now go up to 92s. 6d. But, of course, up to 1958 the real value of those pensions went up only by a much more moderate amount
I think that if you start in 1951 the increase in real value would be only 10s. in respect of a single person and 15s. in respect of a married couple. Since the last increase in 1958 the increase in the cost of living has only been three points, and a great deal of that took place in the first three months, between January and April, 1958. From April, 1958, the increase has been very small indeed. So that only a small part of this increase is represented by the leeway which one might wish to make up on account of the increased cost of living. Far the greater part of it, at least 6s. out of the 7s. 6d., is a real increase in value, and whatever your Lordships may think of the adequacy or inadequacy of the whole structure of the scheme in general, that is at least an achievement which ought to give us some satisfaction: that we have been able to make an increase which is a real increase and not merely an attempt to catch up with inflation.
There is only one other thing which this Bill does which I will mention, because it has not any direct connection with contributions and benefits; and that is in Clause 3 of the Bill which in relation to the retirement condition contains a
32
modification centred on the so-called "twelve-hours rule." I think your Lordships will all agree there has been an inconsistency for some time, because the amount which can now be earned under the earnings rule has gone up to 70s. and it is very unlikely indeed that any retired pensioner would be able to earn as much as that in only twelve hours in one week. I hope that this abolition of the restrictive effect of the twelve-hours rule is at least one measure which will meet with the universal approval of your Lordships in all parts of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

POLICE PAY
4.3 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, perhaps it may be convenient to your Lordships if I now make a statement which my right honourable friend has just made in another place. With your Lordships' permission, I will do so in my right honourable friend's own words.
"I should like to make a statement about police pay. As I told the House on 24th November, I referred the Report of the Royal Commission to the Police Council for Great Britain. At a meeting en 30th November the Council agreed to accept the scale of pay recommended for the police constable by the Royal Commission and to bring it into operation from 1st September. The Council also agreed that scales of pay for the other ranks should be negotiated as soon as possible, and that they should in due course take effect from 1st September. The agreement also covered certain minor points with which I need not trouble the House.
"While the Government fully appreciate the considerations which the Royal Commission had in mind, they do not accept all the reasoning and formulæ by which the constable's scale was determined by the Commission and by which they recommended that future pay should be governed. However, they fully agree with the Commission that the continued increase in crime, the need to strengthen the police, and the reassessment of constable's

33
duties together make it urgently necessary for there to be a very large increase in the pay of police constables relative to other members of the community. They therefore welcome the prompt agreement that has been reached on the Police Council which reflects great credit on both its sides.
"I am laying draft regulations giving effect to the agreement before a meeting of the statutory Police Council for England and Wales to-morrow, and I am asking the police authorities to bring the new scales into payment as soon as possible. My right honourable friend has asked me to say that similar action is being taken in Scotland."
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for that statement. There are one or two points on it which require some elucidation. The first is whether one is to infer that although the Police Council have accepted the recommendations of the Royal Commission the Home Secretary does not entirely accept those recommendations, and that the proposed pay will therefore be something less than the recommendations, although a considerable increase on the existing pay. Could he tell us to what extent, in broad terms, the Home Secretary's views differ from those of the Commission? The other point I would raise concerns the draft regulations which will be submitted to the statutory Police Council. Will those draft regulations in due course come before Parliament, and will Parliament be in a position to express its views as to the adequacy or otherwise of the increases in the rates of pay?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, with regard to the first question the noble Lord put to me, in fact Her Majesty's Government have accepted the pay scales of the constable. I think that that: was made quite clear in the statement made by my right honourable friend at the meeting on November 30, when he said the Council agreed the scale of pay recommended for the police constable by the Royal Commission. I understand that it is certain formulæ and certain percentages and so forth, that are not quite approved for future negotiations; but the actual pay scale has been approved. Perhaps if the noble Lord would like to ask me later by Written Question I could tell him
34
exactly what those points are. With regard to the second part of the question, these regulations will not come before either House of Parliament as it is not necessary under the relevant Act governing police pay.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like on behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches to welcome the statement, which I think we all agree is a good one. There are one or two questions I would ask. First of all, I take it that every effort will be made to get more constables back on the beat. In some districts I understand that this is entirely inadequate now, and I think we shall all agree in this House that the first element in the protection of the public is to get the policemen on the beat. Secondly, the statement is not clear as to the position of ranks higher than constable. Could the noble Earl tell us something about ranks higher than constable? Is there any indication that they will soon be dealt with in a similar way? Further, could he give us any information with regard to the position of police cadets. I have personally always thought those a good idea. Are they affected by this increase? Does their pay go up in relation to that of the police constable?
EARL BATHURST: To answer the noble Lord's question with regard to police cadets, I am not certain; but either I will let him know immediately afterwards, or perhaps the noble Lord would like to put down a Question. With regard to ranks above constable, it is very much the concern of Her Majesty's Government, and in fact panel C of the Police Council is to meet on January 5. That will deal with all ranks up to chief inspector. And it is the intention, depending on how those negotiations go, to get the other panels, panel A, which deals with chief officers, and panel B which deals with superintendents, into negotiation as soon as possible. The noble Lord asked about constables on the beat. This point has run all the way through the Royal Commission's Report, and it is one of the most pressing reasons for the increase of pay. I am quite certain that my right honourable friend is entirely in sympathy with what the noble Lord has said.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for the way in which he has dealt with the questions which I have put to him. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is satisfied with the way in which he has been answered. In view of the fact, which I had not appreciated, that these regulations will not come before Parliament again, can the noble Earl make it absolutely clear that the reservations of the Home Secretary (using his words), that he does
"not accept all the reasoning and formulæ by which the constable's scale was determined by the Commission "
will not affect the constable's remuneration, even if the Home Secretary does not agree with the method by which the Commission arrived at that scale, and that in fact the much-publicised increases will be operated as from September 1?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am quite certain that the noble Lord opposite realises that I have not been in on all of these negotiations and so forth, but, as I read out to the noble Lord, the statement definitely lays down that there is agreement with the scale of pay which has been recommended. Later in the statement I said that it was only the formulæ and certain details that were not approved. But I should prefer to check that, to be quite certain; and perhaps, here again, a letter to the noble Lord would suffice, or possibly he would care to put down a Question by arrangement.
LORD SILKIN: I shall be perfectly satisfied if the noble Earl will let me know, in case there is any misunderstanding in the interpretation of that reservation.
EARL BATHURST: I will let the noble Lord know straight away and he will be in a position to ask a Question.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I personally should be most grateful if the noble Lord opposite decided to put down a Question, because many of us in the House would like to know the answer to that point, and a letter to the noble Lord will not tell us.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should be quite easily persuaded.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, could my noble friend, perhaps at the same time, give some figures? Because I think many noble Lords would greatly like to know the effect on police recruiting of these vastly increased scales of pay, and to follow up that matter. Perhaps it would be possible for him to give some figures of the number of police at a certain date, and then periodically the figures of recruiting and wastage thereafter.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think that is really hardly within the scope of this particular statement, but I am quite certain that noble Lords will put down Questions at suitable times, or it may be that a debate could be arranged through the usual channels. In answer to the noble Lord opposite, I am glad to say that the pay scale for the police constable as recommended by the Royal Commission has been accepted, and the figures are, from starting, £600 up to a maximum, with the new increments, of £970. That is all in the Report. I am glad to be able to inform the noble Lord that it will not now be necessary for me to write to him or to explain this further to noble Lords.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
4.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I rise to resume the debate on this Bill, the Second Reading of which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. May I say, in the first place, how interested I was to hear the earlier part of his speech, raising a new aspect of the question to which I hope to refer later in the course of my speech? With regard to the second half of the noble Earl's speech, I was struck once again with the marvellous facility which he has for quoting masses of figures, all from memory. I always thought I had a fairly good head for retaining figures, but I certainly do not think I could reach anything like the heights of the noble Earl, who gave us figure after figure entirely from his recollection. I hope that some day or other, when I get a little older, I shall be able to do the same.
I approached the whole subject of this Bill by thinking of the questions which

37
the ordinary person would put with regard to any Bill with provisions to reform or improve the National Insurance schemes at present in vogue in this country. I would pose these six questions. First of all, is the Bill an improvement in the present law? Secondly, are there any defects in the Bill which make it unworthy of our support? Thirdly, is the Bill sound both financially and actuarially? In the fourth place, I would ask: are the new proposals in the Bill such as really provide an adequate pension for the poorest section of the community? In the fifth case, are there any defects in the timetable which might be remedied by a change in the actual text of the Bill? Finally, is there a prospective advance to which we may look forward, and does it involve, not only at some early date but in a succession, fresh Bills from year to year, or from two years to two years, as the case may be?
Taking these questions seriatim, I refer to the first two—namely, is there an improvement in the law, and are there any defects in the Bill? I can answer those quite simply. In the first place, this is undoubtedly an improvement in the law, from the point of view of the persons concerned; and in the second place, there are no such major defects or injustices in the Bill as would make anyone wish to refuse the Bill a Second Reading. So I can satisfy the noble Earl completely on those two questions.
When it comes to the matter of the financial situation, the solvency of the Fund and the actuarial question of the future solvency of the Fund, the answer is not quite so simple. Of course, there is no doubt that, from a short-term point of view, the figures in the Bill are perfectly sound and correct. But when it comes to an actuarial point of view, then I should like to make the same answer as I made when I was dealing with the last Bill to which the noble Earl referred, the 1959 Act, dealing with superannuation. The fact is (I stated it at the time) that we are departing altogether from the actuarial basis of National Insurance. I stated that then because I had read the statement by the societies of actuaries; and I was interested to see that in the course of the debate on the present Bill in another place that position was recognised by persons on both sides of the House.
38
As I said when the earlier Bill—now, of course, an Act—was under discussion, we are now standing for an entirely new principle. It is this: that we workers in the present generation are willing to provide benefits for our old people to-day on the understanding that, when we become the older generation, the workers of that day will provide our benefits from their running resources. That is really the new position. It is not an actuarial position at all, an the old sense of that term. It does not mean that a person paying certain sums has earned a certain pension. It is simply an implied promise that the next generation will provide us, in our old age, with the benefits that we are providing for the generation older than us to-day. That deals with the third question about the actuarial basis of this Bill.
Now I come to what is, after all, the most important question: whether the benefits are adequate. I want to begin by considering who are the poor to-day. When I was a boy, the terms "poor" and "the unskilled manual labouring class" were practically synonymous, even when the unskilled worker was earning his full pay and was not unemployed, sick or subject to an accident. He and his family were thoroughly poor, and those of your Lordships who have read Charles Booth's famous Report of 50 or 60 years ago will know that I am not exaggerating the facts. The family of the unskilled manual worker, even when he was in work, were permanently poor; they were half-starved, badly clothed and everything else.
In the course of all the years of this century that situation has clearly changed for the better. Broadly speaking, any person in regular employment to-day cannot really be called poor. Some may be getting a smaller amount than others and may be comparatively worse off, but they are not poor in the sense that the unskilled manual worker in employment was poor in the days of which I am speaking, 60 years ago. But that does not mean that we have no poor to-day; because we have. We have poor people, principally of two classes. The first is the widowed mother. All down these years the widowed mother has been expected to carry on an impossible task—to earn money by her work outside the home and to keep the home and children at the same time. Throughout that period,

39
but particularly in the old days of which I am speaking, she was faced with a totally impossible task. The widowed mothers, therefore, are one aspect of the very poor.
The other class of the poor are those who, having been industrial workers previously, have now had to give up their employment and to depend on such pension or charity of some kind as comes to them. The question to-day is whether those aged people, who have not been poor in their working life, are now poor; and to a very large extent they are. In the old days there used to be a class called "decayed gentlewomen". It was not a very happy phrase, but it was used, and I believe still is used in certain cases to-day. There are people who have been comparatively well off in their former life and who in old age become really poor and call for assistance from all sources.
I was most interested in the speech which the noble Earl made, because he practically admitted that if a man in this country had to rely upon his pension under the National Insurance Act and had no other resources, he would be very poor. Not only would he be very poor compared with what he might want, but he would be very poor in terms of the German system which, I understood the noble Earl to say, provides in many cases something like two-thirds of the previous earnings. Of course it is no good our pretending that anybody with much less than two-thirds of his previous earnings would be anything but poor. In the higher income ranges—the Civil Service and so on—the retired worker gets a pension according to the number of years he has served, which generally works at between one-half and two-thirds of the salary he has been receiving during his working life. Even he may be subject to inconvenience and hardship, but most men who have lived fairly well on their salary can, by saving and cutting things out, manage on an income cut to two-thirds, or even down to one half. But the moment the proportion drops below one-half, it is difficult for anybody so to contract his expenditure and to continue to live in a reasonable position.
The fact is, my Lords, that the people who are least able to cut down their
40
expenditure to one-third of what they had before are the lowest-paid manual workers, men who have been getting, perhaps £8 or £9 per week. For them to have to come down to one-third of that amount, which is something like £3 a week, means that they must inevitably be in great hardship. The noble Earl argued in this way. He said one of the great advantages of not taking too much money from the man in contributions was that it would leave him more money from Which to make provision for himself in other ways. That may be perfectly true in a certain number of cases, but I venture to suggest that it is very unlikely to be effective in the great majority of cases. I believe that there are very few people earning £8 or £9 a week, and having to pay whatever is their National Insurance contribution, who will put aside any substantial amount in order to make provision for their old age. People with large sums may be able to do that; and they do, particularly if there are two or three breadwinners in the same family. But I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the ordinary man with only one income, of about £8 or £9 a week, coming into the house, is going to save in other ways, in addition to the saving provided through the Government. Therefore, although I was exceedingly interested in the point made by the noble Earl (and I will came back to that later), I personally would not put upon it the importance he himself suggested.
If a man is not going to be able to live on his resources without being in extreme poverty, he has to get more money in another way. There is, of course, the National Assistance scheme, and quite a large number of men and women, quite properly, ask for and obtain National Assistance. That is quite a good thing, for it is very different from the workhouse brutality which existed when I was young. But it does involve what some people, rightly or wrongly, look upon as humiliation, in having to give an account of their income to some officer who comes to see them. I am quite prepared to admit that the people who visit such persons behave very well and decently to the people they go to see and do not put humiliating and degrading questions to them. Nevertheless, there are quite a large number of

41
people who are very short of money. They look upon the old-age pension as something they have earned by their work, but they look upon National Assistance as charity, which they do not like to receive: in the view of some of them, it is a humiliating thing, particularly when it involves a means test.
So we have the fact that for a great many people this old-age pension is what they intend to rely upon. And is it enough? My contention is that, looking at it from the point of view that I have, it is not adequate to meet the case of those people who have not got other means. For that point of view, therefore, the provision in this Bill—advanced as it is; considerable as it is—does not come up to the point of being adequate to be the only resource to which a person who has lived a perfectly honest, straightforward, painstaking working life should be entitled in the course of his old age. The noble Earl says that it is up to the workers themselves. He asks: would they like to have the German system, in which they are asked to pay a very much higher premium in order to obtain a higher benefit? He came to the conclusion that, on the whole, they would not. But that is a very interesting suggestion, and if that is the position the Government take up, would it not be right that they should make a few inquiries to find out what would be the attitude of the vast number of wage-earners as to that payment?
I remember that when I was dealing with the 1959 Bill I got, not out of my own head but from the pensions officer of Lever's (I think it was), a statement in which he said it was quite a mistake to think that, on the whole, workers would not be prepared to pay an increased premium for a higher pension and superannuation. I do not know. I do not know that the noble Earl, with all due respects to him, has any ground for being able to say that the figure which the Government are now producing is the last word on what workers would be prepared to pay. I am not prepared to say whether it is or whether it is not. But if the view of the Government is that they have brought in this inadequate pension scheme only because of that attitude on the part of the modern worker, then I suggest to them that it
42
might be quite a good thing for them to go to the sources from which information can be obtained and find out whether that is so or not. But it is perfectly clear to me that, from the point of view of complete relief of poverty through the old-age pension alone, the amount provided in this Bill, good as it is and as far as it goes, is not fully adequate. I do net want to hammer that point home any more.
I want to turn to the two last points that I raise. The first point is this. Is the Bill faulty with regard to its timetable? I do not want to make political points here, and I do not think it will get us very much furthur if I do. But there are people who say that the Government could have brought in this Bill a little earlier, so that it could have come into operation over this winter; and some who say that the additional benefits could have been provided so that the winter did not pass with these people still on the figures they have had up till now. I know the Government's answers to those points; they were stated at considerable length in the other place, and I do not think it is much good our pursuing them at the present time. I state my point merely as a fact. It is unfortunate—I will not put it higher—that the people who are going to get this benefit will have to face their old terms all through the hardest part of the winter. It would have been a happier thing had the Government been able to give them increasing benefits from now, instead of from this long time in advance.
That brings me to the last question (and this was one to which the noble Earl himself referred at some length), whether there should be progressive increases in benefits as the years go by. I understood the noble Earl—I do not think I am misrepresenting him—to say quite definitely that it is the intention of the Government from time to time to introduce further ameliorations. I am very glad if that is so, because if, as time goes by, the prosperity of this country goes on increasing, or if we do not entirely stop inflation, or if there are other causes, then I am sure that it would be the intention of those of us on this side of the House—and I gather from the noble Earl that it would be the Government's intention—steadily to improve the

43
scheme of pensions which is provided in this Bill.
The noble Earl, of course, will not fail to notice that in the other place one of the principal Amendments, which was moved by those of my Party on the Opposition side of the House, was one which would have provided automatically for increases in benefits and reexamination of the scheme at certain intervals, particularly when statistical changes had become evident. The Government rejected that proposal. That would have operated, I think, by Order in Council and not by a new Bill. The scheme which the noble Earl advocates, I think, will in every case require a new Bill after each fresh examination; and that, of course, will mean delay and some inconvenience. If the Government intend to implement what I understand to be the intention of the noble Earl, it means that we shall have a succession of Bills in the future from time to time improving the position of the old-age pensioner. If that is so, it would certainly meet with my approval.
My Lords, I want to say this, in conclusion. There is nothing in this Bill which would prompt my noble friends on this side of the House to divide against it on Second Reading. Whether we shall think fit to put down Amendments for the Committee stage, which I gather will be in about a week's time, we shall have to consider; and I hope that what remarks we make will be received with the interest and the attention which I am quite sure the noble Earl will pay to them. But whether that be so or not, this Bill certainly is an advance; and certainly one which should not be opposed on the grounds of defects in principle. But we remain of the opinion that the scheme is inadequate to bring pensions up to a proper figure on which a person for whom his pension is the only means of support has to base his life and conduct and the upbringing of his family.
4.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think there is anything in the most interesting speech of the noble Lord with which I absolutely disagree, and I think that with most of what he said I found myself in agreement. And I am grateful for the manner in which he has presented his comments on this Bill. His final
44
point, No. 6 in the table, was on the future ameliorations, as the noble Lord described them, of the pensions scheme. I ought to make this quite clear: that there is no definite pledge that pensions will be increased from time to time. What we have said is that we will review the scheme from time to time. It is possible to imagine circumstances (for instance, under what has been called the new social fashions of the wage-earners in an affluent State) in which there might be some great new developments by way of other schemes of insurance which might affect the nature of our review. I do not know; we cannot foresee these things. But, so far, I have never heard of any review of the retirement pensions scheme which was other than in an upward direction; and I think that this is now the fifth or sixth in the last ten or twelve years.
Then the noble Lord mentioned only briefly the point about the timetable: that he thought this might have been brought in before the end of the winter. My Lords, I do not think it could be made to take effect quite so early as that. I think the best general answer to questions about the timetable is to be found in what Dr. Summerskill said when she was Minister for National Insurance in 1951. She said [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 487, col. 592]:
"Most people know that pensions are paid by means of books of 52 weekly orders, which are security documents, similar to a cheque or money order. These books are held by pensioners and exchanged as they run out at the rate of about 80,000 a week. Pensioners affected by these proposals are therefore at any moment holding something like 75 million of these security documents; and a steady stream of additional books of orders is going out week by week to them. All these orders must be replaced either by orders for the new rates, or by amended orders, properly authenticated, before the Post Office officials can pay the new pensions. I would ask honourable Members to remember that."
At that time, my Lords, I think, there were only four million retirement pensioners. There are now nearly six million, so there is even more administrative work to be done. But my right honourable friend in another place was very frank about this. He said that he thought that, if it had been treated as a matter of urgency, we could have started making these new payments towards the end of February—that is, about six weeks before the date on which they will actually come into effect—but he gave

45
reasons for thinking that this gain of six weeks was not a great enough gain to outweigh the advantages of synchronising this new scheme with the date upon which the 1959 Act was in any case going to begin.
The main burden of the noble Lord's remarks was on the theme of: are the benefits adequate?—and here again I do not find myself able to disagree very strongly with anything that he said. He submitted that if a pensioner had nothing at all except his retirement pension, he would be very poor. I think that is obvious and true. One reason why it must be true is that the rate of retirement pension is less than a pensioner with no other means could get by going to the National Assistance Board. I have already given your Lordships some figures on that in my original speech. For instance, under this Bill a married couple will now receive a 92s. 6d. retirement pension, whereas, as I tried to work out a hope my mathematics were correct), if they were (paying a rent of 18s. 6d., which the T.U.C. took as the average rent, and if they were receiving discretionary allowances, taking the average figure, by the National Assistance Board, they would in fact be getting something like 115s. a week, as compared with that 92s. 6d. pension. If you wanted to base your retirement pensions strictly on prevailing ideas of subsistence, it would mean that you would have to raise them substantially, as the noble Lord wants to do.
I am not going to elaborate this at great length, but, as the noble Lord knows, although there are over one million pensioners who are receiving, as they ought to receive, supplementation from the National Assistance Board, there are more than four million others who are not. I will mention the point he made about being too proud to apply in a second or two, but there are a large number of old age pensioners who have very substantial means of their own—some well known ones who are Members of your Lordships' House—and it is at least open to argument whether we should impose a much larger tax upon the earnings of insured contributors in order to pay larger pensions to people who are much better off than they themselves are. It may well be that, as wages go on rising, even the majority of
46
old age pensioners may become related to an income group quite different from that in which most of them find themselves at the present time.
The noble Lord mentioned the fact that some people still feel there is some humiliation about National Assistance. In some cases, I am afraid that may still be true, although I think we have all done our best to remove it entirely from our social habits and conscience in this country. We all feel that inhibitions against National Assistance are utterly wrong, that the modern administration of National Assistance is completely different from the old Poor Law, and that people who need supplementation ought to go and get their incomes supplemented. I hope and believe that the majority of those who need it are doing so, and that there are very few who are deterred by feelings of pride.
Of course, if you are trying to give everybody a subsistence allowance, it is obviously much more scientific to do it through the National Assistance Board and is much less scientific to do it by means of a statutory retirement pension which has to be related to a certain standard of weekly contributions: although, of course, if we had a state of affairs in which people were willing to pay these large contributions, and if the result of the contributions was to make available a sum which was higher than the amount payable by the National Assistance Board, no one could possibly object to that or could consider that it was a bad state of affairs. I think the noble Lord made a very interesting suggestion when he said that we might take more trouble to ascertain by inquiries from cross-sections of insured people how much more they would be prepared to pay by way of contributions in return for so much more in benefits.
My Lords, I do not wish to take up any more of your Lordships' time. I do not think the noble Lord would wish me to enter into a long political argument, which he certainly did not attempt to do himself. I would conclude by thanking him for his very interesting remarks and for his kind reference to myself, and by saying that, if I am spared to reach the number of years which the noble Lord has reached, I only hope that my memory will be half as good as his is now.
4.50 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, may I ask just one question before the noble Earl sits down? I ask it purely for information and not to make any point. I was struck with one point which I thought extremely interesting in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and that is that, as I understand it, there is a profound difference between the basic conception of the present provision and, let us say, the essentially actuarial basis of the Lloyd George Bill of 1911 or 1912, in that we are now making our provisions with a view to securing the benefits, and arranging the necessary finance, for the immediate future, but, so to speak, acting in the faith that our successors in later generations will carry a different burden in relation to what prove to be the obligations of that time. There is a profound difference between that and the essentially actuarial basis of the earlier Acts, and I understood that to be the point made by the noble Lord. I should like to know whether the noble Earl would confirm that.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that is a very good question. If my noble friend would like to read the speech of my right honourable friend the Minister when moving the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, he will find the explanation why this present system of pensions is not on an actuarial basis, as it used to be. My right honourable friend also pointed out that people who had contributed £200 or £300 in the course of their lives to the pension scheme under the old basis—not so far back, perhaps, as Lloyd George, but from as far back as 1925—are now receiving benefits with a capitalised value of £2,000 or £3,000 more than they had contributed.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, to supplement that point of the noble Earl, may I say that in the course of my speech in the debate we had in June last year I quoted certain phrases from the Society of Actuaries in which they make that point very specifically.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House

PATENTS AND DESIGNS (RE- NEWALS, EXTENSIONS AND FEES) BILL [H.L.]
4.52 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Bill to be considered on Report.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Patent Fees]:
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I tabled this Amendment at the Committee stage but I did not move it. I am now tabling it again, shorn of certain superfluous words. As my noble friend Lord Dundee has said that Her Majesty's Government now look favourably upon this Amendment, I need say no more; and I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2 and insert—
("2. Her Majesty may by Order in Council vary the maximum fees set out in the First Schedule to the Patents Act, 1949:
Provided that no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an order under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").—(Lord Cawley.)
4.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill several of your Lordships, including Lord Silkin, Lord Cawley and Lord Ferrier, urged strongly that future changes in patent fees should be approved by the Affirmative Resolution procedure in Parliament, instead of being approved by the Negative Resolution procedure which was proposed in the Bill—although other fees, such as for trade marks and designs, have always been approved by Negative Resolution procedure. I promised I would present what your Lordships had said to my right honourable friend and that it would be considered by the Government. The Government considered very carefully what your Lordships had said, and they reached the conclusion that a statutory limit of £2 on the initial application fee, which was the one about which your Lordships had expressed far

49
the greatest concern and anxiety, together with the Negative Resolution procedure for the other patent fees, would be more acceptable to your Lordships than Affirmative Resolution procedure for the whole lot, which might involve in future a large number of trivial discussions on the small changes in any of the twelve annual renewal fees.
I put forward this proposal in Committee last week with the confident expectation that it would be received with loud cries of delight. I did not contemplate for one moment that any of your Lordships would want to have a Report stage at all. In fact, my proposal received only one very faint murmur of approval, which I thought was prompted by kindness rather than by conviction, and it was clear, from what your Lordships said afterwards, that your Lordships in all sections of the House would very decidedly prefer the alternative of an Affirmative Resolution. I do not know whether I could say that I think the difference between an Affirmative and a Negative Resolution is likely to have any practical effect on the future of patent fees, which will probably go on depending upon how much is needed to defray the expenses of the Patent Office. This is a question affecting future Parliamentary time, and I think that if Members of Parliament feel strongly, as your Lordships do, that we ought to have an Affirmative Resolution to approve changes in patent fees, then the Government ought to persevere in its hitherto unsuccessful attempt to satisfy your Lordships. Your Lordships have listened twice to the arguments against an Affirmative Resolution, and if, after hearing those arguments, your Lordships still consider that we should pledge the future time of Parliament to this very small extent, I do not feel that the Government would be justified in seeking to override your Lordships' wishes in this matter.
I made representations to that effect after our last debate. The two Amendments on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Cawley were drafted last week in consultation with the Patent Office. I thought at first that I might put them down in my own name, but Parliamentary Counsel thought it more appropriate that they should be put down
50
in the name of the noble Lord, because they were drafted in order to replace the Amendment which he kindly withdrew in Committee last week, and the Government are willing to accept these Amendments.
I did my best this morning to get hold of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I again tried to get hold of him before Prayers in case there was anything he might want to ask me about our proceedings this afternoon. If I had not had two Parliamentary Questions, I would have crossed the Floor of the House and had a conversation with the noble Lord on the Front Bench, which I was thinking of doing when my Questions came dangerously near. I wish I had succeeded in being able to have a word with the noble Lord, because I am sure that if I had, any misunderstandings there may have been could easily have been removed.
With regard to the Weights and Measures Bill, all I can say is this. If, whenever I make a concession to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on the Weights and Measures Bill, and if, whenever I accept his views to the extent of 100 per cent., as I am doing now, or agree to any Amendments he may move, he is going to get up every time and make a long speech complaining that I ought not to have clone so, I am afraid the proceedings of the Committee may last well into next summer! All that has been done in this case is to meet the wishes of all, or nearly all, of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to the extent of 100 per cent, and I hope that this will meet with the approval of your Lordships.
5.0 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, my noble friend said "the approval of nearly all your Lordships," implying, I think, that possibly I might differ, as I ventured to say a word last time in defence of the view which he then, put forward. May I say that I welcome this Amendment as much as anybody else in your Lordships' House? As I explained on the previous occasion, I think that one can exaggerate the difference between an Affirmative and a Negative Resolution. There is the difference of out of whose time the debate on it comes, and the difference, to which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, drew attention on

51
the last occasion, of who starts, whether it is the critic of the proposed change or the Minister. The Minister must start, if it is an Affirmative Resolution. I differ from the noble Lord only in his apparent view that it is always a disadvantage to have the first word.
My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will recall the view attributed by gossip in the Temple to a distinguished advocate who, whenever he had a point of law in a case which was certain to go to the House of Lords in any event and in which he believed he was right, was said to prefer to lose his case in the Court of Appeal in order that he should have the first word in your Lordships' House. So I doubt whether it is always a disadvantage to have the first word. Nevertheless, I am sure that, while we can exaggerate the difference between an Affirmative and a Negative Resolution, in the present case an Affirmative Resolution is the better, and I join with other noble Lords in welcoming the Government's concession.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as one who has opposed Clause 2 of this Bill throughout the Bill's progress in your Lordships' House I feel it only right that I too should welcome what the noble Earl has said. If I can be of any comfort to him, and if my memory does not play me false, he said on the previous occasion that one of the differences between an Affirmative and a Negative Resolution was that, in the case of an Affirmative Resolution, Parliament was compelled to discuss it. That indeed is one of the points which has led me all along to feel that the decision which the noble Earl has now taken is the right one. I welcome what he said.
5.3 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had not thought it necessary to say much on this matter—and I do not propose to do so now—but in view of the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I would point out that there is a great advantage in knowing the case you have to meet, in spite of the example he has given us. If we know that the Government are proposing to increase fees for a certain reason, we are at much greater advantage in dealing with that reason than if we had to make a case in the
52
negative, before having heard the Government.
I promise the noble Earl that if, on another measure which is coming before us, he accepts the views of myself and my colleagues, I shall not complain. I do not expect him always to accept our views. What I do expect—and I hope that I am justified in expecting it—is that those views, so long as they are not silly, will be treated with respect. They are the result of careful consideration, and I think that, in the majority of instances, they are worthy of some respect and some consideration. I would say that quite honestly I was under the impression that the noble Earl had not given consideration in the way which I thought we were entitled to have; but if I am wrong, I apologise sincerely. If the noble Earl intended all along to give the consideration which he did in fact give, I must have been wrong and I apologise for having made a long speech, as he says, on this point.
That is all I propose to say. Of course, I am very grateful to the Government for having accepted this Amendment. There is a slight difference in wording between my Amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cawley. I have the words,
"Her Majesty may from time to time by Order in Council …
whereas the words "from time to time" are omitted from Lord Cawley's Amendment. I do not know whether there is anything in the point, but, as the noble Lord's Amendment reads, it would look as if the Government might make amendment in the Schedule once for all, whereas my Amendment makes it clear beyond any doubt that, having amended it, they might further amend it from time to time. I should have thought it would be desirable in the interests of complete clarity to have those words inserted. I should be grateful to have the noble Earl's view on this.
5.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, an that point, think that I aim right in saying that the words "from time to time" were included in the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Cawley put down at Committee stage and then withdrew, and that the Amendment now in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin,

53
is an exact reproduction of that Amendment. The reason why these words have been left out in the present Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, is that when I asked the noble Lord if he would kindly discuss the matter with the Patent Office, they both agreed that, for drafting reasons, it was preferable to leave out from this Amendment the words, "from time to time" and put down a consequential Amendment, which now appears in the Marshalled List. That is the only reason why the words are left out.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I revert for one moment to the procedural Resolution Which was moved earlier in the day? It would certainly have been a little more enlightening if the noble Earl had explained at that time that he proposed to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cawley. We should then have known the reasons why it was proposed to abridge the procedure and take all the remaining stages to-day. The noble Earl may have communicated that Ito somebody privately, but he did not indicate it to the House generally. However, that is by the way.
I should like to say that I think that the public generally, and applicants for patents in particular, should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, for raising this question and for the successful result of his intervention. I do not know whether this will be a last word or a first word, or an intermediate word; but I will take this opportunity of pointing out to the noble Earl, who I presume at a not distant date will be introducing an Affirmative Resolution with regard to this matter, that, so far as I have been able to discover it, the information available with regard to the finances of the Patent Office is not at all helpful. An Annual Report is produced, but it covers not only patents but also designs and trade marks, and it is impossible to see from it what the expenditure of the Office is upon the various branches of its activities. I would point out to him, and to the Minister in another place, that we want a little more information, other than to be told that there is a deficit of £133,000 a year. On that, at any rate, I have discovered, from the Report of the Comptroller of the Patent Office, that if the fees from application and on
54
filing a complete specification were doubled, as apparently is in mind, the additional revenue would amount on last year's figures, not to £133,000 a year but to £180,000 a year.
I should further like to point out that it is a matter for consideration, if it is accepted that this deficit has to be met by increase of fees, whether those fees should be increased in respect of applications and the filing of complete specifications, or whether there are not other fields in which it would be more proper to make an increase: for example, in the charges made for publications of the Patent Office, the revenue from which Amounts to £246,000 a year. A very slight increase here might go a long way to bridging the gap between revenue and expenditure. I would point out, too, that the expenditure of the Patent Office includes expenditure on maintaining the Patent Office library, which is available to the whole world and, in fact, is of great utility. Is it proposed that the public revenue should not contribute to the maintenance of this public library in the same way as it contributes to the maintenance of public libraries all over this country, either through taxes or through rates? I think that that point deserves some consideration before a recommendation is made to Parliament with regard to increasing the fees charged to the patentees. I sincerely beg the noble Earl that some more inquiries should be made into all the aspects of this case.
5.11 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am emboldened by the speech of my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch to add a few words, and I hope your Lordships will not feel they are irrelevant at this stage when we have succeeded in getting a concession from the Government. Those of your Lordships who were here will remember that my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch and I took a line against any fees in connection with patents, because we felt —and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, supported us—that contribution to the national wealth is made in these patents. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton (I am sorry he is not here to-day), pooh-poohed all this and said that he knew all about it, because he had been President of the Board of Trade, and there was no case whatever

55
for suggesting that these fees weighed in any way heavily on the inventors. I have had a certain amount of fan mail (your Lordships are probably accustomed from time to time to receiving a certain amount of fan mail), and one of my letters was from an experienced man in this line of country, a chartered patent agent. I was particularly interested to find that he does not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, at all about this matter. He says that these fees hit the inventor just when he is at his most vulnerable—and that, I think, is a most significant phrase.
I hope the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the President of the Board of Trade will take into account what has just been said. The noble Earl made great point of the fact that ever since the start of this business attempts have been made to make the Patent Office pay its way by the levy of these fees. I very much doubt whether that is really so in the light of some of the information which has come to me from this experienced gentleman. Obviously, for a long time the Patent Office was used by the Treasury as a substantial source of revenue. From time to time, as the noble Earl knows, new Bills were passed into law. The duty of searching, for example, was introduced in 1905, by virtue of an Act of 1902, over twenty years after the birth of what is now the First Schedule of the original Act; yet nothing was done, so to speak, to increase the revenues required for that, because in actual fact the revenues coming in were ample. Exactly the same thing happened when the novelty search was extended by the 1932 Act. That search was then estimated to cost an additional £60,000 a year, and only some £25,000-odd a year was in fact levied by increasing the complete specification fee by £1.
The truth of the matter is that for many years the Patent Office has been making a fine profit and the Treasury have undoubtedly used it as a sort of milch cow. There is plenty of evidence which bears this out. For example, the Joint Chemical Committee in 1944, in a memorandum which was issued on Patent Law Reform, said that during the last ten years the profits handed over to the Treasury by the Patent Office had amounted to no less than £2½ million sterling, obviously a substantial sum. A
56
little later in the memorandum they refer to "the large profits at present shown." Sir Kenneth Swan, whom we all remember as one of the outstanding experts on this problem, was Chairman of a Committee, commonly called the Swan Committee, and in their Final Report, issued in 1947, they refer, in paragraph 251, to:
"There being at present a substantial surplus of revenue over expenditure".
It was not until well into the 'fifties that the revenue began to be caught up by the expenses; and even in 1952 the Comptroller's own Report stated that frequently there had been a large surplus. It was only at that date, as I say, that the statutory fees were no longer sufficient to meet the increased expenditure.
I feel that we ought to have this in mind, and we should remember that for many years substantial profits have been made. The increased expenditure in modern times ought to be offset against the profits of the past before fees are put up in the way in which it is now proposed. I hope that the noble Earl and his right honourable friend, when they come to look at these things, will bear these points in mind, and also that they will remember the important point that has just been made by my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch, who points out that there are many facilities provided at the Patent Office which ought not to be met out of these fees but ought to be met out of the general revenues of the State. This applies in particular, perhaps, to the library, which, as my noble friend says, is used much more widely than by patentees, chartered patent agents or other people who are concerned in getting their patents registered. It is a general library which anybody can use.
I remember being told by a distinguished scientist, whose name is known to everybody in your Lordships' House and who is now head of a leading college at Cambridge, that when he was an undergraduate he used to find the Patent Office much the best place to carry on his studies; and I have no doubt that that is not an exceptional case. It is a fine library, which is very comfortable to work in, and it has a great attraction for all sorts of people not in the slightest degree concerned with patents. It is not right that the poor inventor who is called

57
upon to pay these fees in connection with the registration of patents should have to pay for other people who are using the library and other of the facilities which are provided at the Patent Office. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade and his officials will bear these matters in mind when, having got this Bill—because we cannot obviously resist it any further—they come to look at the fees with the idea of putting them up. These are important matters, and I hope that these debates, which have been very interesting and valuable, will have a due effect on the civil servants and on the Minister when they come to look at these figures.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I must express my personal gratitude to the noble Earl for the trouble he has taken on this Amendment. He appears to have had a pre-hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, of what they are going to say when the first Order is placed before this House. There is only one other small matter, and that is the deletion of the words, "from time to time." The Parliamentary draftsman pointed out that these words were unnecessary by reason of the Interpretation Act. That is why they have been omitted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment to the Title.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 7, leave out ("repeal") and insert ("provide for amending").—(Lord Cawley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
INDUS BASIN DEVELOPMENT FUND BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.