Lords Sitting of 21 March 1961

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

TAX ON SAFETY HARNESS IN CARS
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in order to encourage the use of safety harness in cars, they will consider abolishing the 50 per cent. purchase tax on harness which is at present chargeable when fitted as part of the car's standard equipment.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I know that the noble Earl will not at this time of the year expect me to comment on a taxation matter, except to say that his suggestion will be considered. I should bring to his notice, however, that it is an established principle of the purchase tax that a taxable article which is supplied complete with accessories is charged with tax on its total value as delivered, including the value of the accessories, and that to make an exception to this principle would be likely to have far-reaching effects.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Answer and for saying that Her Majesty's Government will consider the suggestion, may I ask him whether the saving of life is not more important than a principle of taxation? Secondly, if harness is placed in a car at the time of manufacture it is liable to be a much safer anchorage and therefore a much safer proposition to the occupants of the car; and is that not therefore again far more important?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not want to add anything to my

1069
original Answer, but perhaps I might read to your Lordships an Answer given by the Minister of Transport a few weeks ago, on March 8, in reply to a supplementary question about this. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT. Commons, Vol. 636 (No. 69), col. 456]:
"There are two parts to the safety belt; first, the safety belt itself, and, secondly, the ancho7age. So far as the anchorage is concerned, I have already taken action and have asked the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to have talks with my Department with a view to seeing if we can incorporate the anchorage when the body of the car is built and not after. Discussions have been proceeding for some months now on that basis. At the moment they are on the tech-Meal level, but I assure my honourable friend that l have this matter very much at heart. I should like all new cars in this country to have the anchorage installed while they are being built, and then to recommend the type of webbing which should go with that particular anchorage."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would not the Treasury recoup something in direct taxation from the profits of the people who supply the cars or the appliances if, in the interests of saving life, some concession were made upon safety belts? It would not be entirely a taxation loss. I am not thinking of the noble Earl's difficulty about the technical problems within the tax administration; but I think the matter ought to be looked at from the point of view of the safety of the passengers and drivers.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sure that both the Minister and the Treasury have the question of greater safety very much in mind, and it is certainly their desire to encourage the use of these safety belts.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, if persons think that this is going to save life, surely they think it is worth spending a small sum of money on it.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the intention of the Minister of Transport in his Answer in seeking to find out whether the anchorage could be embodied in the chassis is to relieve the anchorage and the harness of taxation?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think if the noble Lord would look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place for March 8 he will find a large number of
1070
Questions and supplementaries on this matter, which it would hardly be suitable for me to quote to your Lordships at Question Time. As your Lordships know, purchase tax is not charged on a safety belt which is sold apart from the car. It is suggested in reply to that that it is unsafe if it has not got suitable anchorage, so it does have a bearing on that question.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, if the anchorage is part of the car, and the manufacturer charges a higher price, then tax falls upon that higher price, including the anchorage and the harness?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly.

PERIODICALS FOR BRITISH COUNCIL IN ADDIS ABABA
2.42 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the funds put at the disposal of the British Council in Addis Ababa are so limited that they are unable to pay for airmail transport of English periodicals—with the exception of The Times—and that in consequence their admirable work is handicapped.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, almost all daily newspapers are sent by air to the Information Office of Her Majesty's Embassy at Addis Ababa. The British Council sends about 105 specialised journals and other periodicals to its reading room in Addis Ababa. These are published at weekly, monthly, or longer intervals, and very few are printed in air-mail editions. The cost of despatch by air would be unreasonably high. As a matter of fact, in addition to The Times, three weekly journals—the Sunday Times, the Economist and the Manchester Guardian Weekly—are sent to the British Council's reading room by air.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess very much for

1071
that Answer, which is partially consoling, if I may say so. Would he agree with me that the provision of reading rooms is among the most important work that the British Council do? I wonder whether he would not find it possible to be even more generous towards these rather remote branches of the British Council, of whose work the provision of British periodicals in their reading rooms forms such a very important part.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said. Perhaps it is of some interest that the Information Office in Addis Ababa, as the noble Lord knows, is not actually in the Embassy itself but down-town, so that these newspapers are very readily accessible to the public. But I think the point he raises is not about Addis Ababa and that he is thinking of other parts of the world.
LORD FARINGDON: I am thinking principally of Addis Ababa, but these considerations must apply, as the noble Marquess is aware, to all the remoter branches of the British Council unless they have special provision to pay for air-mail services. For example, I am told that it takes seven weeks for periodicals to arrive in Addis Ababa, by which time they are a little out of date.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with all respect to the noble Lord, I think that perhaps the daily newspapers are not of such great importance and that we should pay more attention to the non-ephemeral publications.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if the noble Marquess will allow me to say so, I notice that a daily paper and a Sunday papers are sent by air. Apparently the opinions of the Opposition are not considered to be of sufficiently urgent importance to be sent to the office of the British Council in Addis Ababa. Why do they not send one Sunday Labour paper (there is only one) and a good Labour daily as well? Is it all to be left to the Conservatives?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as originally framed, the noble Lord's Question could not but
1072
make me wonder if opinions might not differ as to whether receiving only The Times was entirely a handicap.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, following on the question of my noble Leader, could the noble Marquess say what is the basis of selection? The periodicals he has mentioned, quite apart from the educational content, are, by and large, the heaviest in weight. Yet they are the ones selected to go by air. Can the noble Marquess say what is the basis of selection: whether cost is one of the operative factors or on what other basis the periodicals should be selected?
LORD REA: My Lords, would not the noble Marquess agree that money would be saved if only Liberal publications were sent?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, in reply to the perhaps rather more serious question, I think this subject is rather outside the original Question. I agree that it is an interesting and important matter but I do not think we can discuss it as arising out of the original Question.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would my noble friend tell me by what method of transport the corresponding Russian information gets to Addis Ababa?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have no information on the subject but I will make it my business to inquire.

THE SITUATION IN BASUTOLAND
2.47 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make as to the situation in Basutoland.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the General Workers' Union in Maseru called a general strike on 14th March, in sympathy with a club servant who had been dismissed. There was some intimidation. A public meeting of some

1073
1,000 persons developed into a procession. Since the situation showed signs of getting out of hand the Resident Commissioner called on the Paramount Chief to provide men to supplement the police in preserving order. The Paramount Chief accordingly supplied about 600 men. Their main duty was to secure unhindered passage for workers wishing to reach their work. The strike was called off on the night of 15th–16th March. Late on li7th March a temporary ban expiring at 8 a. m. on 20th March was imposed on public meetings in Maseru of more than three persons. In the course of investigations on 18th March arising out of this situation the police in Maseru have detained 51 persons against whom charges are now pending. The details of the charges are as follows. Thirteen men are being charged under the Entry and Residence Proclamation; thirty men are charged with theft, assault, possession of habit-forming drugs or tax default; and 8 women are charged with vagrancy or other minor charges. Reports that 600 people have been arrested are unfounded.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while indicating that I have an interest in this Territory, being a merchant of 80 years' standing there, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether he is aware that the very small number of Europeans there (some 2,000 to 3,000) and the very large number of Africans (upwards of one million) traditionally live in amity, the one with the other; that the Europeans quite recently have established an employers' association which is itself non-racial; that the committee of this association are meeting with the committee of the trade unions and that they are hopeful of arranging conciliatory understandings for working conditions?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I was not aware of all that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I understood from the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House that this unfortunate occurrence started from an industrial dispute. I thought that perhaps it was that which was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, at the end of his remarks. Could the noble and learned Viscount tell us whether at the present time there is any
1074
conciliation machinery for the settlement of disputes in Basutoland that is known to, and recognised, by the Governor?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I cannot do so without notice.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We will put it down.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the first Question, is the noble and learned Viscount able to make any statement with regard to this position? Many firms in this country manipulate products originating from Basutoland. Is that likely now to attract treatment, from a Customs point of view, different from that given when the. Union of South Africa was in the Commonwealth? It might be assumed that such imports would no longer receive Commonwealth preferential treatment and would attract the same duties as imports from a foreign country. Could he give any information on that point?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that is a somewhat different question. But if my noble friend will look at the answer I gave to my noble friend Lord Lonsdale in reply 'to a supplementary after my original statement in this House two or three days ago, I think he will find that this question may be answered, so far as I can answer it at the moment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on the Department of Technical Co-operation at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision as to road safety and road traffic and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS (BLOOD TESTS) BILL [H.L.]
2.51 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like for a short time to go back to 1939, just before the war, because in February of that year a rather similar Bill was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. The Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading by your Lordships and was referred to a Select Committee. They, unfortunately, had not completed their work when the war broke out, and so the Bill did not proceed any further. Considerable discussions have taken place since the war, because of various changes in the whole of blood-grouping knowledge. The Bill which I have the honour to present to your Lordships this afternoon is the result of these discussions which have been carried on for the last ten or twelve years.
During the year 1959 there were 4,996 applications for affiliation orders. Some of these were made by the mother herself. A certain number were made by the National Assistance Board when the mother applied for National Assistance and they found that she was not getting money from the alleged father. Of these 4,996 applications, 4,160 were granted by the courts. The number of those contested we do not know: it is not possible to obtain the figure. During 1959, too, 212 people were committed to prison for non-payment under an affiliation order. Some of these went to prison because they either could not pay or did not care whether they went to prison or not. But a certain number went to prison because they denied they were the father of the child; it was done on some kind of principle on their part. Once again, I am afraid I cannot tell your Lordships the proportions of the two groups.
This is a matter in which science can be of some assistance to the law, because a lot of work has been done and many steps have been made in the study of blood grouping, of which nothing at all was known until roughly 60 years ago. Blood grouping first came in some time before the First War, and it was used a good deal during the First War. The
1076
main purpose was to ensure that patients who required a blood transfusion were given blood that was compatible with their own blood and not incompatible, because if it was incompatible a patient would be killed, or would certainly suffer a severe illness. That is what occurred before these tests were discovered, and in fact a number of blood transfusions ended in disaster.
From that situation we have now advanced a good deal. It is now known that we have bodies, called genes, which convey from the parents to the children the qualities of the parents which are inherited by the children. By a profound study of these genes, and what can be done to test them and investigate them, we have now reached the stage where we can say that, if we know to what particular blood group the mother and child belong, we can say that the father must belong to one of a certain number of blood groups. One cannot put it very much more definitely than that. But one can say that if he does not belong to one of those groups he cannot be the father of the child. That is really the purpose of the Bill that I am introducing.
Blood grouping can be done in several ways. There are about live or six systems of blood grouping, but I want to mention only two because the others are not likely to be used to any great extent. In the first system, the blood is divided into two main groups called group A and group B. From that one can get blood containing group A and one can get blood containing group B; or one can get a mixture of the two, A and B, and blood which contains none of that at all and which is called group O. That group covers between 40 and 50 per cent. of people. To take an example, if you are dealing with the paternity of a child, if the mother and the child belong to group O it is quite impossible that the father should come from group AB. That has been proved by a large number of experiments into which I do not want to go in great detail.
The second system of blood groups which I should like to refer to is of those known as M and N. To these groups there are no exceptions. We have people who may be M; we have people who may be N; and people who may be MN, which is a mixture of the two. To take one example about

1077
the paternity of a child, supposing the mother was group M and the child was group MN, the father could not be from group M. That, again, has been proved by a very large number of experiments done both in this country and in various other countries in the world. I think it shows that the whole of the blood groups depends upon the inheritance and is governed by the Mendelian Law. This law, which was invented by an Austrian called Mendel at the beginning of the nineteenth century, was lost sight of for sonic time and did not come back into the scientific world again until the end of the nineteenth century.
One point was raised to me before I came down to the House. If you are going to test people, do you need to test the mother, as well as the father and the child? It was thought by some people that it might be a disincentive (to use an unpleasant word) if in these cases the mother were required to be tested. The answer here, I think, is that although in a few cases it might be possible to establish paternity by testing the father's blood and the child's blood, it would be impossible to tell, before the blood test was done, which those cases were, and in the vast majority of cases a satisfactory result would not be obtained from the test unless the test on the mother were carried out at the same time.
When the earlier Bill was placed before your Lordships in 1939 one of the people who supported it strongly was the late Lord Dawson of Penn, and he quoted one set of figures which I should like to repeat now, because they are, I think, interesting. He said that a sample had been collected from several different countries, and from many observers showing the results of tests on 10,092 mothers, with 12,943 children. The object was to see whether the blood grouping system that I have talked about was completely valid in all cases. It was found that there was not one single discrepancy in that sample—and those figures have been confirmed by many more observations made since then. Therefore, it seemed as though there was a perfectly clear-cut case, and that nothing could go wrong. I must, however, be fair to your Lordships, and say that there is one
1078
factor, and possibly two, which may cause a little doubt in the system about which I have been speaking.
One is a factor called mutation. That means that there is a sudden change in the character of one of the genes I have been talking about. The gene undergoes a sudden change during the passage, or before the passage, from the parent to the child, and so one may find something peculiar occurring in that sort of way. One of the commonest types arises when a disease known as hæmophilia is present. That is a disease which, as your Lordships probably know, is transmitted by the mother but appears in the father. It cannot be transmitted by the father, and it cannot appear in the mother; but it is transmitted by the mother and appears in the father. That is caused by a change in one of the maternal genes. The number of cases in which that change occurs must be in the neighbourhood of 1 in 50,000 a year, because, if it were not so, the number of people in the country who suffer from hæmophilia would fall—they tend not to be a reproducing lot of people—whereas the number remains, roughly speaking, the same.
There was another quite big sample taken in Copenhagen not long ago, when the MN groups of more than 60,000 children were investigated. No irregularities were found until the 60,000 had passed; and then one case was found where the mother, whose blood group was M, had an N-group child. This, I think, is the one case where it has ever been known to occur, so I can say that it is quite unique and very rare. In fact, people who have studied the question much more than I have done tell me that it is unlikely that the genes of a blood group would show mutation on anything like the scale of the patients suffering from hæmophilia. The proportion might well be one in a million—or even less. Certainly no mutation of a blood group has been observed in the last four years; so, although I felt I must mention that fact to your Lordships, it is something which is extremely uncommon, and I do not think that we should pay too much attention to it. We should pay some, but not too much.
My Lords, there are various other extremely difficult practical matters which might crop up. One is in the

1079
development of a new sub-group somewhere among the known groups, but I believe that invariably that would be quite simple to detect, and I do not think that it should necessarily cause any alarm. Your Lordships may feel that justice might not be done because of some technical flaw of the type I have described. But one has to realise, I think, that there is no test in the world which gives results that are absolutely and invariably correct. In every test there is somewhere a flaw; but the numbers of exceptions to the principle is so extremely small that it does not affect what we feel about the value of the tests.
If this Bill were to become law, the following systems would be generally used for blood tests. First of all, there is the test for groups A and B; and, secondly, there is the test for blood groups N and M. Then there is a third group which I have not mentioned to your Lordships hitherto, which is called the rhesus test, which deals with four types of antisera and which has results quite similar to the ones I have mentioned. Those are the ones we would apply. If those systems were used for the tests, it is reckoned that 55 or 60 per cent. of the men wrongly accused of paternity would be exonerated; and I think your Lordships will agree that that is quite a satisfactory number.
The question then arises as to where these tests should be carried out. In my view, the best place would be in the forensic medicine laboratories attached to the universities. At the present time, they are carried out in four laboratories attached to the universities. They are done at Guy's Hospital laboratories, the London Hospital laboratories, at one laboratory in Sheffield and at another in Glasgow. One would not suggest. I think, that they should be done in the ordinary blood transfusion departments of the Ministry of Health, because the people who go to give their blood voluntarily would probably not want to feel that they might be mixed up in paternity cases. Furthermore, the normal laboratories under the Ministry are already pretty well occupied and would not take very kindly to any further burden being put upon them—and there I can quite agree with their point of view. At the present time, there are about 200 tests a year which are
1080
done under the voluntary system. So far as one can see—here again, it is very difficult indeed to prophesy a figure—they may go up to about 1,000 tests a year if the system which is envisaged in this Bill becomes law.
Then the question arises whether it would be an extremely costly business. My Lords, I do not think it would be very costly, because, at the present time, under the voluntary system, the fee paid to the laboratory is ten guineas plus another fee of two guineas paid to the doctor who collects the blood from the patient and sends the sample to the laboratory. That means a total of twelve guineas per test, which would work out—though I do not say that this is a figure of very great importance—at 1 per cent. of the total amount of money paid under an affiliation order. These are generally in the neighbourhood of 30s. 0d. a week and go for sixteen years, and one finds that twelve guineas is about 1 per cent. of the total sum involved.
One of the things which the Bill requires is that when the test is done the person who collects the blood, or the one who performs the test, does not necessarily have to appear in court, but the court will have evidence of the certificate signed by him, which will be produced in court and which will take his place. I was talking to one doctor who has carried out about 600 of these tests on the purely voluntary basis, and he tells me that he has been called to appear in court only three times, which shows that the bulk of the magistrates are prepared to accept this certificate given by the person who performs the test. The Bill, if it becomes law, might serve to cut down some of our prison population, so a certain amount of money might be saved there, because some of those fathers who have been sent to prison for non-payment under an affiliation order—when I say "those fathers", I mean those alleged fathers—might be proved not to be fathers. They would therefore not go to the prison, and their keep in prison would be saved, which would be something to weigh against the cost of the Bill.
I will be quite frank with your Lordships and say that there is nothing to help the women at all. The Bill is merely to help the men; but the fact that it helps one sex, not at the expense of the

1081
other but instead of the other, does not mean that that particular sex should not have justice done if justice can fairly simply be done—and that, I submit, is what this Bill does.
I should like to take a few more moments of your Lordships' time, because work of this sort is being done in quite a number of foreign countries. For example, in the United States, the State of New York made blood tests compulsory in 1935, and that has since been followed by ten other States making the same sort of provision. In Denmark, these tests have been compulsory since 1937; in Sweden, since 1933; in Germany, since 1937. In Switzerland, a test can be ordered at the discretion of a judge of the court; and the same applies in France, when in 1955 provision was made whereby a judge must order such test to be carried out if the defendant demand it. So there are a good many precedents in other parts of the world for the carrying out of these tests.
I would now refer briefly to the various clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with the powers of courts to order a blood test. Subsection (1) says that the court shall require the test to be done if the mother or alleged father demand it. When we were drafting the Bill, we felt that we must put in the word "shall" so as to bring some kind of uniformity into the practice of the 900-odd courts in this country which might be called upon to deal with this kind of thing. The same subsection goes on to say that if the mother refuses to submit to a test, the court shall dismiss the application. Various representations have been made to me since this Bill was published, and I think one might accept an Amendment, or I might draft one myself, to provide for any case of conscience there might be. There may be people who genuinely feel that they could not, on their conscience, allow a blood test to be taken; and because of that I do not think they should be penalised. It would be for the court to decide whether such expression of conscience were genuine or not; but I think it would assist people if some provision like that were made. Furthermore, the court may adjourn the application if for any reason it so thinks fit. For example, supposing the child were sick and not able to have a blood test taken; the court would then adjourn the application in question.
1082
Clause 2 makes provision for the test to be carried out by an approved person at an approved testing centre. Furthermore, it says that the blood samples should be taken by a registered medical practitioner. The third clause deals with the admission of the certificate showing the result of the test in evidence in court, and it states that the certificate shall be commented upon in court only if it shows that the man could not be the father of the child. Once again, strong representations have been made to me that it should be possible for the certificate to be produced, whether it shows that the man could not be the father, or whether it shows that he conceivably might. That is a point which I should prefer to discuss with people interested, and if we can come to agreement about it I am prepared to move an Amendment on those lines when we come to the Committee stage.
Clause 4 deals with costs, and whether either party should pay the whole or only part of the costs, or whether the costs should be met from public funds. Clause 5 deals with appeals, and empowers a court of quarter sessions, if they see fit, to order a new test. Clause 6, I am afraid, places yet another burden on the shoulders of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, but I am sure his shoulders are broad enough to take it. The clause authorises the Lord Chancellor to make rules dealing with the selection of approved persons and their duties, the taking of the blood, fees, and other matters necessary to the proper working of the Bill. Clause 7 deals with the appointment of a body which has rather a strong name; it is called the "Blood Tests Board". Some people have asked: does not this mean a very expensive set-up, with a big secretariat and premises? Not at all. But this matter may be further discussed in Committee. I think the expenses of the Board will not be more than their travelling expenses, and therefore I do not think one need be frightened that this means a great deal of money.
The next clause, Clause 8, is the penalty clause. It has been suggested to me that the penalty involved is far too low, particularly for people who try to impersonate either the child or the father. It has been suggested that that figure might

1083
be raised fairly considerably. There is perhaps some substance in that, and it is a point on which I shall be prepared to bring in an Amendment at the Committee stage. Clause 9 gives the definitions; Clause 10 says that the Bill shall not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland; and Clause 11 gives the Short Title of the Bill.
My Lords, I feel that this is a useful and practical little Bill that will do justice to a few people who at present are suffering from an injustice. The Bill does nothing to take powers away from the court when the test is not positive, or to interfere with what the court can do, on evidence collected from other sources, with regard to making an affiliation order. It merely serves to clear a certain number of men from the charge of being the father of a child by their proving that they could not be the father. I trust that what I have said will be sufficient to enable your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
3.18 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords. I am sure we have all listened to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, with great interest, but I was surprised to discover—and I listened to him very carefully—that he devoted the major part of his speech to the technicalities of the Bill. This Bill deals with a tragic human figure, the unmarried mother, and there are certain provisions in this Bill which, if not carefully examined, will bear very hardly upon her. The noble Lord who has just spoken, except for mentioning two Amendments which had been suggested to him by the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child, did not deal in any one respect with what could be the inhuman repercussions of this Bill. I confess that when I knew that this Bill was coming before your Lordships' House, I was inclined to support it because I was under the impression that any opposition which it received before it was brought to your Lordships' House would be due to the fact that there was some misunderstanding of the technicalities of the procedure. However, on more careful examination of the Bill, I have taken an entirely different view of this measure.
1084
In the first place, let me impress upon your Lordships that this Bill is of very limited value. It is not disputed that in two-thirds of these cases which will be subject to blood test no inference of any kind as to paternity can be valid. As I said, the Bill is therefore extremely limited, and I would ask your Lordships to listen to what I have to say in the light of that fact. I feel that it does not weigh the scales of justice fairly between the man and the woman. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, so admitted. May I remind your Lordships of what was said when the matter came before you on the last occasion? The noble Lord, Lord Gorell, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 111, col. 697]:
"The noble Lord said that he introduced the Bill without any wish to favour either party, but at the same time he was obliged to admit that if the Bill did in fact become law, it would really favour the defendant. It can in no circumstances, I suggest to your Lordships, benefit the applicant. It is a Bill framed from a man's point of view. From the point of view of the woman, which is that with which naturally my Council is primarily though not exclusively concerned, the time is not yet ripe for the passage of this Bill."
If the provisions of this Bill are examined impartially, I think that it can be held that their limited value to society cannot compensate for the undoubted hardship which they inflict upon unmarried mothers. During a previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, argued that the number of men in prison for non-payment on affiliation orders would be greatly decreased, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also appeals to your Lordships to consider that, if this Bill were passed, the prison population might be reduced. But surely this presupposes that many men in prison are not fathers of illegitimate children and consequently, rather than pay, prefer to go to prison. I suggest that this is an over-simplification of the situation.
A man who is reluctant to marry a girl he has seduced is often subject to bitter attack by the unhappy girl, and at that time his family, or even another woman, may urge him to repudiate her. The end of this little tragedy is for the stubborn man to refuse to make affiliation payments, with the inevitable result that he is sent to prison. Of course, it is precisely this man, who has already been proved to be the father of the child,

1085
who will take full advantage of the provisions of this Bill and demand a blood test in the event of the court deciding against him. He will have nothing to lose and will be able to delay a final decision, a course which must inflict further hardship on the unmarried mother.
Again, there are many simple girls who may be unfortunate enough to be involved in these proceedings and who, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has mentioned, may strongly object to blood being taken from them or from their babies—it may be on religious grounds. Clause 1 empowers the court to dismiss the application of a mother who refuses to submit to a test. Surely, my Lords, we are establishing a precedent by denying justice, if a women refuses to have her blood or her baby's blood taken. I have read the Report of the Select Committee that was set up after the Bill came before your Lordships on the last occasion and I was impressed by what Mr. Dunne, a stipendary magistrate, said with regard to this. He said:
"Surely this is an interference with the liberty of the subject."
The National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child are prepared to accept this Bill only under certain conditions. They recommend that
"some provision should be made to protect the persons who refuse to allow blood for a test to be taken from themselves or from the child on religious or other grounds, providing he or she could satisfy the court that the objection was a reasonable one."
I take it that this was the Amendment to which the noble Lord referred. I would ask him to envisage the scene. If he inserts that Amendment, it means that a simple, ignorant woman will be compelled to formulate a rational argument in her defence; otherwise in a court of law her application will be dismissed.
Clause 2 provides for sample blood tests to be taken by general practitioners. The only humane note I have observed in the Report of the Select Committee was where it said:
"We must recognise that some of these young women be nervous at the thought of their blood and their baby's blood being taken and should be allowed to go to their own general practitioners."
I confess that the Report seemed to me a little harsh, almost mediæval, and this was the only humane note. A woman may go with her baby to a general prac-
1086
titioner and have a test made: but what is to prevent a man, who knows that he is guilty, from sending a close friend to a doctor for a sample to be taken? The blood has to be sent to a pathologist. It seems to me that there would be a grave risk of confusion, and if a fraud is perpetrated—and the noble Lord did not rule this out—then the victims are the woman and her child.
It will be argued that if this Bill is approved these tests will be made by people with the greatest skill and experience. Can this be assured? Is there a chance that no mistakes will be made? I would remind your Lordships that the Lord Chancellor who opposed a Bill similar to this in 1939 said that he did not think it was an impossible view that mistakes might be made [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 111, col. 710]:
"…inasmuch as the eminent pathologists who have been advising the Home Office have suggested that when tests taken by one of the approved persons under Clause 2 of the Bill have shown that the blood of the alleged father is such that he cannot have been the father, then it will he desirable that there should be a further sample of the three bloods taken and sent to another institute to obtain an independent check."
In other words, having considered the Bill objectively and impartially, the Lord Chancellor felt (and no doubt he was advised by experts) that there was a danger, a risk, of a mistake being made. The Select Committee have ruled against a second test because, if a second test were introduced in this Bill it might cast doubts on the whole proceeding. If an eminent pathologist suggests that there might be a risk of a mistake, one is led to the conclusion that the first test by an approved person might be unreliable. I would emphasise that by accepting this Bill, it might be that we are putting into motion machinery which, so far, the scientists cannot say is perfect. If there has to be a second test, then the expense and delay and inconvenience will be greatly increased, and again the chief sufferer will be the unmarried mother.
Clause 3 of the Bill provides that the results of the test must be notified to the court by certificate only, unless the court or either party require that the expert who made the test shall attend. As Clause 4 states that only the certificate which is favourable to the man shall be produced, the only party who

1087
will demand further evidence must be the girl, who can be called upon to pay the expenses of a highly paid professional man or woman. Surely this is quite inequitable. I am not surprised, therefore, that the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child recommend that all the certificates should be admitted as evidence and comment allowed upon them, rather than create an air of mystery about an inconclusive certificate. I feel strongly about this, and I believe that on this issue your Lordships should hesitate before giving it support.
It will be recalled that on the last occasion the National Council for the Unmarried Mother, who surely know most about this matter (it is a very fine body) had a large meeting, with some hundreds of people present, and rejected this suggestion. I was surprised to learn, on making further inquiries, that an ad hoc meeting was arranged on March 10 at 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields to discuss this Bill, and representatives of the National Council for the Unmarried Mother were there. But when I came to examine the composition of the committee, which I think your Lordships would agree could well represent an unmarried mother, I found that only seven people were present, and of these only one was a woman. The Committee of Management of the National Council consists of 25 people, of whom 16 are women. The members of the Council total 125, and the great majority of them are women, but on this subject (the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, will correct me if I am wrong) a decision was made by a majority of men, to support a Bill which, if it becomes law, will favour the man.
My Lords, I would accept that in this society of ours men may have a monopoly in many fields, but I think your Lordships will agree with me that a matter which concerns the unmarried mother and her child should be considered by a majority of women.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: No.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Perhaps the noble Lady has little knowledge of the subject. The noble Lord has, I think, agreed with me here that this decision was made by a majority of men. I plead the case of the unmarried mother, who
1088
I believe should evoke our compassion. It is she who will be punished throughout her life for her fault. Should we deliberately add to her burden, when she is desperately in need of our help and sympathy?
LORD AIREDALE: May I take it that in referring to the speech of the Lord Chancellor the noble Lady was referring to the late noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, who was Lord Chancellor in 1939?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Yes. It is Hansard of February 8, 1939, column 710.
3.33 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I hope that I may be forgiven for intervening in this debate and for speaking entirely personally, but it arouses in me, for reasons which have been mentioned, some rather nostalgic memories. As the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has said, in 1939 your Lordships gave a Second Reading, without a Division, to a Bill which I then introduced on very much the same lines as this Bill. I might, as a matter of interest, mention that in 1939 the Bill was supported strongly by two very doughty supporters: on the medical side by Lord Dawson of Penn, and on the legal side by Lord Atkin. I think it will be agreed that if the noble Lord, Lord Atkin, found it possible to support a Bill from a legal point of view, it cannot have been, to put it mildly, a very bad Bill. The Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, was referred to a Select Committee. But the noble Lord made a slight slip when he said that the Select Committee had not finished its business when the war broke out. In fact, the Select Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has indicated, had reported favourably upon the Bill; had made some minor Amendments to it, and asked that it should be allowed to proceed. It was at that point that the war stopped further progress.
The only opponent who came forward on that occasion was the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, then, as now, the President of the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child. Then the Council, unanimously, I think, opposed the Bill, and noble Lords voiced their objections. Perhaps I might relate that I think the bravest thing I have

1089
ever done in my life was to attend the annual general meeting of the National Council, in a room in Piccadilly (I think it was), where there were about 200 ladies present and only one other man in the room. The politeness and courtesy which I received on that occasion was matched only by the hostility with which my Bill was received.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Hear, hear!
LORD MERTHYR: I must tell the noble Lady a little of what happened after that. I think your Lordships will agree that one of the best signs of true greatness is to change one's mind, and I must relate that in the year 1954 (I am not referring now to 1961) the National Council announced that they gave warm support, in principle, to the Bill, believing that the Bill would assist the administration of justice. That was a magnanimous decision and a magnanimous change of mind, and I should like to give the fullest credit to the National Council for changing their mind. That is typical of the very high standards which this public body has shown over a long period of years, and I think the country is greatly indebted to the Council, who have worked so hard, entirely charitably, for such a long time for a good cause. I may say that I am proud to be a member of it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I agree that it is a very fine body. But does not the noble Lord agree that there was an ad hoc meeting of the Council to discuss this Bill, the matter we now have under discussion, on March 10, when seven people were present of whom only one was a woman?
LORD MERTHYR: I am sorry, but I cannot say, because I know nothing at all about that meeting. But I have been informed in the last day or two that the National Council are of the same opinion now as they were in 1954. I might mention that in the interval between 1939 and now the matter has not been entirely forgotten. During the 'fifties a series of meetings took place in a Committee Room in this House, at which an unofficial body of medical and legal people, drawn from all over the country, met on frequent occasions, their sole purpose being to make the Bill better, if it could be so made. In fact,
1090
very little alteration has been made to the Bill, but it has been brought up to date. We do not think that it is perfect yet, but we shall continue, if your Lordships will allow, to try to make it so.
May I now invite your Lordships' attention to the position of magistrates who have to try these cases? The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has already said that there are about 5,000 of these cases every year before the courts; that is, something like 150 every working day. Most of these cases—not all, because in some the only question is how much the man ought to pay—are bitterly fought. They are, after all, of great importance to the parties. Although the noble Lady may say that this Bill is not of great consequence, it is an important matter to the mother, and to the alleged father, who is going to be asked to pay for the upkeep of a child—perhaps 30s. a week for sixteen years. Somebody has got to keep this child: the mother, the State or some man.
In my experience of these cases, apart from one other class—namely, fish-poaching cases—there is no class of case in which there is a greater degree of perjury in the courts. In the cases which are fought at all there is always a flat denial by one side or the other of the facts at issue. Can it be wondered, therefore, if magistrates will clutch at any straw in the wind to enable them the more readily or the more easily to administer justice? I believe that this modest Bill will be of some considerable assistance to the courts in this matter, and I think it will be agreed that they need it.
May I just remind the House that the law of this country (I speak subject to correction by those with greater experience than I have) is different in this regard from that in Continental countries? In England, the question is not: Did this man have intercourse with this woman? That is not the point, or not the primary point. The question is: Has it been proved that this man, to the exclusion of all others, is the father of this child? That is where our law differs in a material respect from the law of some Continental countries, particularly the law of Norway, which is very go-ahead in this matter but which has a different law from ours. In this country, therefore, unlike Norway, the promiscuous woman cannot obtain a paternity

1091
order. I should also like to mention that there is the group of cases where the man admits having had intercourse but denies that he is the father of the child. He challenges, so to speak, the court, or the applicant for the order, to prove that he is the father. He says, not unnaturally, "Unless it can be proved that I am the father I am not going to pay, whether or not I had intercourse". The noble Lord has already told us that in 1961, it is claimed—and I think rightly—that over half of the number of men who are wrongly charged can actually be cleared by a system of blood tests. In 1939 I was able to put the proportion only at one-third. Now it is raised to over one-half. It may be that in years to come the fraction will be greater still.
Some will say—indeed, some have said; the noble Lady has said—that this Bill cannot help the unmarried mother. My Lords, that is true. But whilst agreeing with her on that point, I must challenge some of the statements which she later made. If it cannot help the unmarried mother, I say that the Bill cannot hurt her; it cannot harm her, I maintain, in any way unless, of course, her case is either fraudulent or mistaken. Then it can harm her. But does anybody really seriously claim that in that event she should not suffer? It is said that this means a compulsory operation because it is a compulsory blood test. So it does. But we must really get to grips with the question of what this blood test is. The noble Lady, being a doctor, will be able to tell us. I am informed that in many hospitals—and I have found out this as respects one of the teaching hospitals in London—a blood test is a routine for every pregnant woman admitted to the hospital. If that is so, if a woman has a blood test before having a baby, can it really be a hardship to have one afterwards?
In case it is assumed—wrongly, it would be—that I am speaking against the woman and in favour of the man, may I say this? Most of the cases that come before the courts are genuine cases, where the mother is in the right; and one hopes that justice will be given her. Most of the cases are good cases, and in all of them the mother will suffer no harm whatsoever, except possibly some slight delay. The noble Lady spoke of
1092
delay. If a child is going to be kept for sixteen years, is the delay of a few weeks really material? In any event, when a paternity order is made it can be antedated to the date of the birth of the child.
Now, I must deal shortly with the question of costs, because I apprehend that some of the most potent criticisms that may be made against this Bill will be on this question. This matter is dealt with in Clause 4. It is said—indeed, the noble Lady said it—that the man, even if he had a hopeless case, would ask for a test, just out of mere spite. She may not have used those exact words: but other people have done so. Will he ask for a test frivolously? My Lords, he may. But the answer is that he can then be ordered to pay the whole of the costs of the test, and I believe that in those cases he will be made to do so. The clause of the Bill which deals with costs, leaves, I think rightly, a complete discretion to the court in this matter. That follows a precedent, and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will agree when I say that in almost all criminal cases the court has a complete discretion in awarding costs—and I believe that is right.
The court can, under Clause 4, award costs to either party, or to none or it can order the costs to be paid out of local funds. That may be a matter of criticism, but I would remind the House that that can be done to-day in almost every criminal case, and there is nothing new about that: it is not unusual. I believe that it can be claimed that, generally speaking, magistrates do not now abuse those powers. If that be so, I have no reason to think that they will do so in the future. As to whether the costs will be great, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, dealt with that. In any case, what will these costs be compared to the amount now spent on legal aid in this country? If it is right, as I believe it is, that litigants should be legally aided where necessary, is it not right that in a few of these cases, which are also civil cases, the litigants should be aided, by the order of the court, at the expense of the public?
I should like to deal with one or two of the points which the noble Lady made in her speech. She said that there would be inhuman repercussions. I hope that question has been dealt with. I have tried to show what is the maximum hurt

1093
that will come to the woman, the mother of the child. It is nothing more or less than having her blood tested. I do not believe that it is more than that. The noble Lady said that this Bill was of limited value, and I am not disputing that. But if it is of any value at all, I would ask your Lordships, in the absence of really weighty objections, to pass it into law. The noble Lady said that it would be an interference with the liberty of the subject. That is a time-honoured phrase. Of course it is an interference with the liberty of the subject, exactly as is the rule of the road which compels us to drive on the left of it, instead of, when we want to, on the right. The noble Lady said that a simple, ignorant woman would not be able to plead her cause. In almost every one of these cases, in my experience—and, I believe, in the experience of all people concerned with these matters—the women are legally represented, at least by a solicitor. In fact, I do rot know a class of case where it is less common for the parties to appear in person than in paternity cases, for the simple reason that there is so much at stake.
Then the noble Lady raised a point which must be properly answered, and I think it can be. Her point was: What is to prevent impersonation? That is a serious matter; and I admit it. But I believe that the Bill as drafted, and the rules that will be made under it, will properly take care of that point, so far as it can possibly be done. No one can deny not only that mistakes might possibly be made but that there might be impersonation, just as there now is when a man applies to pass the test to drive a motor car. There is sometimes impersonation, but it is looked after and guarded against, and I believe that it will be with this Bill.
Finally, the noble Lady said that the Bill, if it becomes law, will favour the man. The answer to that is simply this: that it will favour the man, but only if he has been wrongly charged with the paternity of the child. Only in that event, and in no other circumstances whatsoever, will it favour the man. My Lords, is that a fair test? I suggest that it is.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I, as one who comes here quite
1094
ignorant of all this, with an open mind, put this question? If a woman objects to undergoing such a test, would he allow her to plead some kind of conscientious scruple and just dismiss her from the case?
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, that is more a matter for the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, and he has already dealt with it in his speech. As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, this afternoon, he indicated that he might be prepared to consider an Amendment which would introduce a conscience clause. I would rather not say anything further. The subject has been newly raised. But I am quite certain that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would be prepared to consider it. He has told me so and he told your Lordships so, did he not this afternoon? But I would point out this: if there is a conscience clause I think there must be plenty of safeguards to it, because otherwise it will be a loophole through which the mother will be able to escape. I believe that there can be proper safeguards to some such clause.

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
3.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think this might be a convenient moment for me to do what I propose to do, which is to read to your Lordships a statement which my right honourable friend the Prime. Minister has now made in another place. The statement is as follows:
"Her Majesty's Government have recently had under review the governmental arrangements for the provision of technical assistance to overseas countries.
"Up till now, requests for technical assistance have been dealt with through different administrative channels, depending on whether they come from one of our dependent territories, or from an independent country of the Commonwealth, or from a foreign country. These arrangements have been adequate in the past, but with the growth in the size and importance of our plans for helping overseas countries with trained men and women, special equipment, and so on, closer

1095
co-ordination is needed. The Government therefore propose to set up a new Department to be called the Department of Technical Cooperation.
The new Department will be in the charge of a Minister. His rank will be equivalent to that of a Minister of State. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friends the Commonwealth Secretary and the Colonial Secretary will continue to be responsible for matters of general policy, but within these general limits the new Department will take over responsibility for the provision of technical assistance—other than capital projects—which is at present undertaken by the three Overseas Departments.
"It will be concerned with much of the technical assistance provided with the help of the United Kingdom through international organisations, as well as technical assistance given to the recipient countries direct.
"The new Department will, as one of its duties, administer the scheme set out in the White Paper presented to Parliament last October, for the continued employment of overseas officers. It will, however, not be responsible for the transfer, promotion and discipline of members of the Overseas Service in dependent territories; these matters will remain the responsibility of the Colonial Secretary.
"I took the opportunity of the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to inform them of our proposals.
"I am confident that the creation of this new Department will enable the United Kingdom to meet more readily and effectively the many requests for men as well as for money that come to us from many countries, inside and outside the Commonwealth.
"The legislation necessary to authorise the creation of the new Department and the appointment of its Minister will be introduced at an early date."
My Lords, that is the statement.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, who
1096
asks me to tell your Lordships that he regrets he cannot be here himself. We will, of course, consider very carefully this statement, and there will be an opportunity for us to express our considered views when the legislation to which the noble Viscount refers is introduced. In the meantime, I think we can say that we certainly welcome any sign that the Government is taking even more seriously its responsibility for providing economic and technical aid for underdeveloped countries. We all hope that this new piece of administrative machinery will, in fact, result in more aid, which is the essential and indispensable criterion by which it will be judged by the underdeveloped countries. We have certain very serious reservations to make about the functions and the powers of the new Minister, and those were mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, in a debate on this subject which took place in your Lordships' House last month. I will therefore not repeat them now. I hope that the Government will go ahead and introduce this new piece of legislation as soon as possible and that there will be a minimum of delay.
What I should like to ask the noble Viscount, because I think it is important, is whether the new Minister, who presumably will have his own staff, will have staff transferred to him from the three Departments which now deal with these matters, because if he does not he will really not be in a position to do the work of co-ordination which the Government intend him to do. He will simply be left out in the cold by the three Ministers who are dealing with the matter at this moment. I should like the noble Viscount, if he would, to answer that question.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his welcome to this statement. The Bill, I hope, may be ready by Easter, but at any rate we are hoping to introduce it at an early date. As regards the last point which the noble Earl has made, primarily the proposals will mean bringing together work done in overseas Departments, and in general the new staff will come from those Departments.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am a little intrigued about why it is necessary to create a new

1097
special Minister for this purpose. We shall get too many Ministers if we do not look out, and the independence of Parliament will thereby be impaired. We want the job done; we believe in overseas technical aid and all that, but could the noble Viscount tell us why it is necessary to create a brand new Minister for this, who presumably will be answerable to three other Ministers? Could it not be done by himself, as Lord President or Minister for Science, or by some other appropriate Minister? Is not the Government getting a bit wasteful about creating Ministers, and is it really necessary? I recall that the Labour Government used the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to look after Germany, but he was in some way responsible to the Foreign Office. If it is a matter of coordination, could it not be done by some existing Minister without creating a new one?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, whether one appoints an existing Minister to a position or not is a matter of appointment. But I should have thought it followed from the fact that you were creating a new Department that, in the ordinary course of events, Parliament would wish to create the office of a Minister to be in charge of it. I do not know whether it would be constitutionally possible to create a Department without doing that. The reasons for the creation of the Department are set out in the statement. It would be open for the noble Lord to criticise any appointment which is made under the new legislation as being unnecesary and as being capable of being made jointly with the holding of another office. But I think that if you are going to make a new Department you must ordinarily create the post of a Minister who is responsible for that Department.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, if—I am giving this only as an illustration—the Prime Minister arranged that the noble Viscount himself, as Lord President or Minister for Science, should undertake these coordinating duties, surely that would not require legislation.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think, with respect, it would, if there were a new Department with a Vote. But it would he far more convenient to have it with
1098
a Minister, and I think it would probably be necessary.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, is there not a useful precedent for this? After the First. World War we created a number of credit organisations and so on, and it was then found convenient to have a Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade who was responsible both to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and to the President of the Board of Trade.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: He has gone, I think.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I dare say, but there may be another person doing the work. It worked for a long time, and extremely well. When you are trying to create an agency (because that is really what this is, as I understand it) in which several senior Ministers will have an interest, I venture to ask whether it is not better to have that agency responsible to those Ministers, as I understand the Minister of State would be, rather than to have some quite senior Minister trying to coordinate his colleagues.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I would, with respect, agree with my noble friend. I know that this particular Department of Overseas Trade, while it existed, was a precedent which we had in mind when we were considering the best way of doing this. I would go even further. I should be surprised to find that a Department could be created without making a Minister responsible to Parliament for it.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Viscount tell us how this aid will affect such organisations as the Colonial Development Corporation and other similar bodies? Would they come under its aegis or would they go out of business?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think they would go out of business. I think that, in the ordinary course of events, this Department will become responsible to Parliament for their activities.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like further clarification on this point. I thought, from reading the statement—I may he wrong—that the new

1099
Minister would not deal with capital aid, but only with technical aid, and that therefore the Colonial Development Corporation and all forms of investment or grant, whatever shape they may take, would remain as they are at present. I should be obliged if the noble Viscount would look into that matter again.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I certainly will. It may be that I have inadvertently misled the House. If so, I will seek to make the necessary correction.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS (BLOOD TESTS) BILL [H.L.]
4.4 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I must confess that this afternoon I feel, rather surprisingly, a little like one of the defendants in the affiliation cases with which this Bill is concerned, because my name seems to have got on the list of speakers by some unfortunate accident which I should be the first to disown. But I have given some little thought from time to time to this question, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I make just one or two points about this Bill in a rather hastily considered way.
I must say at the outset that I am much disturbed not to find myself in the wholehearted agreement that I normally expect with the noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Merthyr. But I have some doubts, and particularly about the nature of the evidence on which proceedings under this Bill will rely. I do not for a moment dispute—I certainly am not in a position to dispute it—all that has been said about the technical aspects of this matter, or about the convincing nature of the disproof in scientific terms, except in the very rare case of a possible mutation. But this evidence is, by its very nature, of a kind which cannot be brought home convincingly to an ordinary layman in court. Many of these laymen and lay women are not very learned persons, and certainly not scientifically literate persons. To some extent, therefore, to the ordinary layman it savours of magic.
1100
The blood test which is envisaged here is in a quite different category from the routine blood test which, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr has said, is conducted in cases of pregnancy. If the routine blood test shows pregnancy, nature will, in the course of the succeeding months, confirm this prediction. If the blood tests exclude a possible father it is quite impossible that this should ever be confirmed later by evidence which is comprehensible to the ordinary layman. It is true that to some extent and in a number of cases the courts do rely on technical evidence, or moderately technical evidence; but nearly always I think the layman can get a little nearer to the facts than something which is done in a laboratory and of which he would have no understanding, even if he could see the process.
In fingerprint cases, for instance, photographs are at least produced in court, and a lay jury in criminal proceedings can persuade themselves that they can compare the two prints which are produced in the course of evidence. But this is something in a quite different category; and, after all, although the scientific evidence may be conclusive, mistakes are sometimes made. Tests are done by human beings, and samples have been known to be mixed. While one may accept tests of that kind where subsequent events will prove the answer right or wrong—as, for example, in the diagnosis of a disease or of pregnancy—in this case subsequent events can never produce additional evidence. I think that we are not yet sufficiently scientifically advanced to justify asking, indeed to compel, people to accept evidence of this character. I know that these affiliation cases are exceptionally difficult and often exceptionally distressing, and that probably they are not infrequently the source of some injustice. But if we are going to alter the law here, I would wish that we had altered it in a rather different and much more radical way.
Let us be realistic. It is frequently a matter rather of good fortune than of good management whether a man is or is not the father of the child of a particular woman. I think that one of the Scandinavian countries (I am sorry that, in the shortness of time, I have not confirmed which) deals with this matter in a radical and, in many respects, I think, a

1101
just way. They do not ask whether in fact the man is the father of the child they ask whether his relationship with the woman is such that he could have been the father of the child—that is to say, there has been connection between them in the relevant period. If the court is satisfied that that is so, then all the men who might have been the father of this particular child are required to contribute to its support pro rata. If we are going to modify the law, that seems to me—I hope it commends itself to your Lordships as well as to the noble Lady and myself—to be a more just and considerably more radical measure. I would ask your Lordships to consider very carefully before you accept a compulsory blood test of a character in which a mistake can be made but cannot be disproved, and which is of such a nature that the persons most intimately concerned are quite incapable of judging whether or not the answer is correct.
4.10 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I have the greatest sympathy with my noble friend Lady Summerskill in her approach to this Bill. I only wish that the advance of science had taken a slightly different direction from that in which it has gone and that science had devised a test which would have enabled us accurately to identify a father of a child. Unfortunately, things have not happened like this. The knowledge about heredity which has come about has arisen out of very elaborate and detailed studies based primarily on the need for efficient blood transfusion; and there were many early tragedies when blood transfusion was first started. Gradually, exact knowledge was accumulated about sera and the reactions of red cells to sera and, almost by chance, the odd information was collected which made it possible to say something about the parents in relation to the child.
That was almost accidental, and certainly it was not the purpose of scientific investigation to produce this information. But, that information having been produced, I think—and I hope your Lordships will think—that it is right that this information should be made available to the law in order that the law can be a little more exact in what it seeks to do. I myself would agree with my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger that the proper way to deal with this point might well be to share responsibility among
1102
all the potential fathers of a child. I think that would be a much more just thing to do. That is not what our law does, however; and under the present law there are, every year, perhaps 55 to 60 miscarriages of justice because these blood tests are not applied. The result of those miscarriages of justice is that a man who is not the father of a child has to pay. He may or may not have had intercourse with the woman, as he has been accused of doing; but some other man may be the father of that child.
These blood tests enable detection of the fact that he is not the father: that is all. That can be detected, not with absolute certainty but with a high degree of certainty. There is great difficulty when we are dealing with absolute truth and absolute certainty, because no human being or human activity is completely infallible and, in science we are mainly concerned with the degree of error in any particular test or observation. I had intended to speak entirely on the technical side of these tests, but since other points have been raised I have briefly put that point in relation to the tests. The validity of the tests is very high, as medical tests go. The margin of error is of the order, as my noble friend Lord Amulree has said, of one in 20,000 times that is the degree of likelihood of the test being a failure.
I do not propose to weary your Lordships with the very beautiful and exact work that scientists have done in order to try to pick out the sources of these errors. As my noble Lord has said, over 60,000 mothers and babies were tested in Copenhagen before the single one was found showing a mutation or abnormality in the tests. Here we are dealing with only a few hundred cases a year, so it might be that an error would occur, due to the test, once in every ten or twenty years. That is the order of error. We are fairly sure that at the moment the order of error is about 50 to 60 per year. Surely it is worth getting that degree of certainty into the law in order that injustice may not he done to those men. No injustice or justice will be done to the woman. All this Bill does is to ensure that injustice shall not be done to men who are not the fathers of these children.
My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger spoke about routine tests in

1103
pregnancy. Those are not tests for pregnancy. It is vary rare indeed that blood tests are made to see whether a woman is pregnant. If it desired to establish that, the urine is used; but every expectant mother now has blood tests, first in order to discover if she is anæmic; secondly to make sure that she is not suffering from syphilis, and, thirdly, to make sure that her blood group is not likely to give rise to rhesus trouble, through jaundice, in the baby. These are all highly complicated, highly technical, matters which could be explained to her only with very great difficulty—even more complicated, if I may say so, than the matter dealt with in this Bill. Therefore, with great respect to my noble friend, I do not think that that particular part of her argument was valid, although I agree with her that a radical reform might be desirable.
My noble friend Lord Amulree gave a very accurate, in fact, perfect, disposition of the technical side of the Bill, and I do not propose to repeat it, I agree with every word he said. I have done my best to check the information with the best authorities on this subject in the country, and I am certain that my noble friend has told your Lordships precisely what they would tell you. I have tried to indicate to your Lordships the margin of error. It is substantially less than when this Bill was first introduced some years ago, because a number of rare abnormalities which could cause error have been discovered in the interval; and though these very scarce mutations may occur occasionally, they are less important than the human errors which might occur in the doing of any medical tests; and in any scientific or medical test there is the possibility of human errors, which I think are even more important. Human errors can and do occur in hospitals. There are small risks which have to be taken. But, even so, I would expect that it could be said that this would give us results which would be accurate 9,999 times out of 10,000—which would not be at all bad from the legal point of view. I hope your Lordships will support the Bill.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a
1104
question? Who are these gentlemen who are suffering at present? They are gentlemen who have lived with the woman but are not, in all cases, the father—is that the position?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, by no means. It may well happen that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, would be the proper person (because he has had far greater experience of magistrates' courts than I have) to answer my noble friend's question. In paternity cases the woman may accuse anybody of being the father, but presumably she will have evidence. Sometimes she is what might be called a "loose" woman and she will pick the wealthiest of her paramours and go for him—for obvious reasons. I believe that that is the kind of situation which may occur but I should prefer the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, to answer my noble friend's question.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, will the House permit me to try to answer the noble Earl's question? The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, mentioned one doctor who had dealt with 600 blood tests. In a little under 20 per cent. of those 600 cases it was proved that the man had been wrongly accused of being the father of the child. That is the answer to the question. Those are the men whom this Bill will help.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am so sorry to intervene again, but that, I am afraid, did not answer my question. I was assuming that these gentlemen in some cases had not been the fathers of the children. But I was saying: Have they, in fact, been what the noble Lord called paramours? They are not, in other words, innocent gentry—not like Members of this House.
4.21 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and trust that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill. I very much welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. For my part, I speak in medical matters as a completely ignorant person, but I have no hesitation in accepting what has been told me by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor; that is to say, that the blood test can show, beyond all reasonable

1105
doubt, in certain cases that the man cannot be father of the child in question.
My Lords, in contrast, I think, to those who nave already spoken, I have myself as a barrister had direct experience of appearing in bastardy summonses; and I can remember very vividly, even at this distance of time, the circumstances of one case where I appeared for the unmarried mother, and another case where I appeared for the putative father. In both cases I believed that justice was done. I hope that my belief was not based on the fact that in both those particular cases I was successful for my client.
But, my Lords, I agree profoundly with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and with what was said in an important speech in this House many years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Atkin: that there is no class of case before the courts in which perjury is more common or more nearly universal. Anything that can give the courts more certainty seems to me to be desirable. I could not follow the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, when she seemed to think that it showed a lack of sympathy with the unmarried mother if you wished her to be unsuccessful in her application against a man who was not the father of her child. Whatever my sympathy with the unmarried mother, I do not wish her to triumph by inflicting an injustice. It is, I think, justice that is at stake. Therefore, I hold very strongly that this Bill should receive a Second Reading.
That does not mean that some of the clauses as they stand strike me as unquestionably right. They do not. I think that, if this Bill receives a Second Reading, there are matters which, with the aid of the Government Department that will advise us, we must most carefully consider with a view to improving the Bill. It has been assumed in some quarters that, if the evidence shows that the man cannot be the father of the child, the certificate will be conclusive. I see nothing in the Bill that so provides; but I may be wrong—and I do not say it is wrong that it should not be conclusive. But I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that information which is so relevant in certain cases should be available to the court. That is the ground on which I support the Bill. It can only avail, as my noble friend Lord Merthyr said, to protect the
1106
man who cannot have been the father of the child in question. If the test does not prove that, it cannot be given in evidence at all.
The risk of personation has been mentioned. The Bill endeavours to provide against that; and we shall have to consider whether or not the provision is sufficient and will necessarily be successful. But whatever improvements may have to be made to the Bill in Committee, I think it deserves a Second Reading in the interests of justice.
4.26 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not intervene in this debate for more than a moment, but the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has asked a question and I think I can provide an answer. I remember a case being reported, between the wars, which took place in East Anglia, where a man had been sent to prison 19 times for refusing to pay maintenance orders, made by the magistrates, and it was afterwards proved that he had had nothing at all to do with the woman ever. I have never succeeded in getting what would have interested me enormously: the terms of the apology that was tendered to him.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, could we be told why this Bill should not apply to Scotland? I cannot believe that this problem never arises in Scotland.
LORD SILKIN: Nor can we.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: We have already been told that there is a suitable place for the test to be taken in Glasgow. So perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who, after all, is a Scottish Peer, could tell us why he has excluded his own country from this particular piece of legislation.
4.28 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, as always when experts propound upon an expert and technical matter, sides are immediately perspicable in your Lordships' House; and the expert evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, clashed immediately with that of another of his profession on the opposite side of the House to mine, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who, as we know, is a

1107
skilled doctor. And her opinions clashed with those of her noble friend Lord Taylor. I think that what we have seen as a result of this debate is that, on the one hand, there is the certainty (as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, especially pointed out) that there are some few cases of men who may be wronged at law, yet should this Bill be passed by your Lordships there would be a definite proof by testing of blood that would save them from being wronged at law, and it would prove them not to be the father of the child. That is the limited provision on the one side.
On the other side, there are the complications of administration about which I must say a little. There is a certain loss of freedom, to which the noble Ladies, Lady Summerskill and Lady Wootton of Abinger, referred. That case can be argued, I think, as we heard this afternoon. Then without doubt there will be many drafting points, to which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, referred, in order to be sure that this Bill is watertight. And I need not tell your Lordships that time in this Parliament is running short for such very drastic redrafting that might be necessary, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, will agree.
My Lords, tribute has been paid to my noble friend Lord Merthyr, who is Chairman of Committees of this House. In fact, I was most impressed by the special tribute that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, paid to him, in suggesting that he would be the best person to explain a point in this Bill to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. Did the noble Earl wish to interrupt?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am sorry; I wish that I were in a position to interrupt the noble Earl, but my attention distracted itself from him.
EARL BATHURST: We were reminded that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, introduced his Bill in 1939, and that the war stopped the later process of its becoming law. Now since those days the science of blood testing has made great advances, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and others of your Lordships, have told us, and the rudiments of this knowledge are becoming diffused among the population. The basic prin-
1108
ciples underlying this Bill are very much the same as they were twenty years ago, and it is to them that I will turn in a moment or two.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, described the principles of the division of the blood groups, of the testing and of the transmission of the genes to a child according to the laws of the Mendelian theory. I will not go over any of those points again, but it is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, that in some cases—though not in all—where a man is wrongly alleged to be a child's father, tests of his blood and that of the mother and the child will show that he could not be the father of that child—that is, where the test shows that his blood characteristics are incompatible with those of the child.
In other cases—for example, where the blood characteristics of the mother, the true father and the alleged father are all similar—the tests will be inconclusive, showing merely that the alleged father, along with many other people who have similar blood characteristics or a similar blood group, could have been the father. And these are the people to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, referred, I think, in one of the Scandinavian countries. I do not know whether it would be possible to find all the people to whom the noble Lady referred. Now, of course, this blood testing, as envisaged in the noble Lord's Bill, does not help that in any way at all.
I think I can safely say that these scientific principles and the deductions drawn from them command general acceptance. In some cases, such information would be of very great assistance to the courts, as my noble friend Lord Merthyr has most graphically described to us. He told us some of the difficulties which confront magistrates in such cases—comparable, even, with the difficulties of deciding whether or not a poacher of trout (or was it salmon?) was telling the truth.
Those of your Lordships who sit in magistrates' courts from time to time adjudicating in these proceedings will agree, I am sure, that this is a field where the Court is sometimes confronted with the conflicting testimony of the two parties, with little or no independent means of assessing their reliability. That is the problem that the noble Lord seeks

1109
to solve. What has to be considered is whether the assistance which might be rendered to the courts justifies the elaborate machinery which would have to be set up. At present, parties in affiliation proceedings may, by mutual agreement, arrange for blood tests to be carried out, and the results may be put before the court as evidence in such form as the court will accept, but—and this is where the Bill comes in—no one has the right to demand a test, and the court has no power to order a test.
While, in the Explanatory Memorandum to his Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, says that blood tests are being employed in affiliation cases in this country with increasing frequency, such information as the Home Office has suggests that in fact such tests are rarely carried out; and the reasons for this, venture to suggest, are not difficult to see. As we have heard to-day, as matters stand, a woman cannot be obliged to submit herself to a blood test, and any woman who takes advice will be told that a blood test cannot in any circumstances help her case. But that is not to say that it will damage her case. And I think the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, will agree that to say that it will damage the woman's case is very different from saying that it will not help her case. This Bill helps only the men: in no way can it help the women.
Moreover, the part that blood tests can play in these cases is still not too widely known, as I have indicated, and as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, indicated. The number of doctors and other people who are ready and able to carry them out is small, and the costs of the tests must be met by the parties, who are generally poor people. The purpose of the Bill, as I see it, is to remove those difficulties, and I know that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, set out to do. But your Lordships should be in no doubt, in weighing the advantages of this Bill, that its effect, if it becomes law, will be strictly limited; and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made that point.
My Lords, rather less than 5,000 applications for affiliation orders are made each year, and rather more than 4,000 orders are made. I think the noble Lord,
1110
Lord Amulree, gave some fairly complicated figures, and those are the ones to which I am referring.
LORD AMULREE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Those are exactly the figures which I gave, except that I gave the full four figures. Rather than saying 5,000, I said 4,996.
EARL BATHURST: I thank the noble Lord. I want to emphasise the point which he made, and to make it quite clear to your Lordships that only a small number of cases are involved, and that we cannot get any really accurate estimate of what the number is. Certainly some of the 4,000 orders that are made are made in contested cases, and some of the 1,000 unsuccessful applications fail for reasons other than that the defendant successfully contests the case. For instance, a woman may withdraw her case, there being insufficient evidence, or it may be settled out of court.
However, it is estimated that about one-fifth of the cases are, in fact, contested. The proportion of these cases in which the defendant is innocent cannot be estimated, but it is probably small. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, thought there would probably be fifty. Again we cannot estimate the proportion of cases in which the courts now come to a wrong decision, with resulting injustice to the man. In about half of this unknown but, I believe, very small number of cases (as I say, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor., thought that there would be about 50 cases) where paternity has been falsely alleged against a man, blood tests might be expected to prove his innocence and so avoid the risk of a wrongful finding of paternity. Now I do not suggest that this is an argument against the noble Lord's Bill, and there is force in the argument that any procedure which would save even a few men from a wrongful adjudication of paternity would be welcome. There is no doubt about that, and that has been expressed on both sides of your Lordships' House. But what I am saying is that the limited scope of what the Bill would achieve should not be forgotten when we are considering its provisions, some of which have their complications; and there is also the question of the expense that it would entail.
I should like to say a little more about some of these provisions. First, it must

1111
be accepted that it is, to an extent, an infringement of individual liberties to enable an alleged father to oblige a woman seeking an order against him to submit herself and her child to an operation, an operation which, though trifling and virtually free from risk and danger, she may find frightening or distasteful. Whilst I do not like that word operation "I must use it, because this is, in fact, an operation; and I do not want to give the impression that blood-testing can be done haphazardly or inexpertly. But I think I must take up this point against the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. Really, it is a small matter of a little injection into the arm and the withdrawal of the blood. It cannot really be worthy of the term "operation"; and it would be very wrong if any woman thought that, by being submitted to a blood test, she was going to undergo a full-scale operation. I do want to correct that idea, which I think people outside your Lordships' House might have gained from what the noble Lady said.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I did not mention the word "operation". That was the noble Lord's word, not mine.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I know the word "operation" was not used by the noble Lady; but her emotional description of the process of blood-testing would make it seem that an operation was involved. I do not think that is fair to the noble Lord's Bill; nor would it be fair to public opinion.
Your Lordships will observe that if the mother refuses to submit to the tests, the consequence is the dismissal of her application, however good her case against the man. I do not suggest to your Lordships that this consideration should weigh too heavily against the noble Lord's Bill's advantages, but it is one that your Lordships must consider. The Bill places no restriction on the right to demand a test, although the noble Lord has suggested a possible Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, also gave examples of how a frivolous case might be brought, yet he thought that in fact, by the court's giving payment against the frivolous case, this possibility would not be too serious. It is a point which will have to be borne in mind, however. It is difficult to
1112
form an estimate of the number of men—for it would always be the man—who might exercise their right to demand a test. The only guide is the rough estimate, as I mentioned earlier, of the applications which are at present contested—one-fifth of the total, or nearly 1,000 a year.
Since the test can exonerate a man but cannot inculpate him, the only deterrent would be the cost, which is the cost of taking the blood samples. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said that it might be ten or twelve guineas. I am not sure that I agree entirely with the noble Lord's ingenious plea about the saving of money on prison sentences for fathers who would not be paying maintenance. I am not sure whether that plea would stand up in print, but I take note of the noble Lord's ingenious idea. I think it is only realistic to suppose that a large amount of the costs would be bound to fall on some public fund or other.
Most of the tests will achieve nothing that would not otherwise be achieved. For while some tests will exclude paternity, it will never be known in how many such cases the court would have found the paternity proved had it not been for the test. My Lords, that is a complicated point, and I sympathise with the noble Lady. I see she shakes her head, but I hope she will read those words in Hansard tomorrow. The gist of the matter really, my Lords, is that had the test not been taken the court might easily have found, or there would have been a good chance of the court's finding, the correct paternity in the case. We can never tell how many of the cases this blood testing will in fact solve, against Lord Taylor's guess (shall we say?) of 50.
I should also like briefly to refer to the administrative arrangements which would be necessary under the Bill. They are, for the most part, left to be prescribed by rules to be made by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack. I think the proposed Blood Tests Board may be rather a cumbersome edifice for this purpose, as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, suggested. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any idea about salaries, contracts, and so forth, of such people. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—and I am sure my noble and learned friend would be the first to

1113
agree with me—that it would be a considerable task, and my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack would need expert advice.
Procedures for taking samples for their speedy transmission to a testing centre, and for the avoidance of impersonation and error, would also have to be devised. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, both mentioned difficulties under those headings. Centres and staff to carry out the tests must be found. Here I would say that the tests, if they are to be prescribed by Statute, will need to be thorough and reliable, and are thus likely to need expert staff and suitable conditions under which they can be carried out. They may, indeed, differ from the sort of facilities which are available in the centres which the noble Lord mentioned. It may be that those centres would be able to carry out such tests, but that is a point which would need considerable consultation between the departments concerned and those centres, and I could not say any more about that particular point at this stage.
Her Majesty's Government are not entirely happy about all the provisions in the noble Lord's Bill, as I have endeavoured to point out to your Lordships. We should wish to give it very careful thought, and to consult a number of persons and bodies interested in the provisions of this Bill, if the Bill received a Second Reading and came before a Committee of your Lordships' House. Whatever comes of the Bill, we have had—and I know your Lordships will agree—a most interesting and expert debate by experts, except for myself, on both sides of your Lordships' House. I can only ask your Lordships to weigh up the matters that you have heard and to take notice of the problems to which I have brought your Lordships' attention. I leave it to your Lordships to decide whether the Bill shall be read a second time.
3.49 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the first thing I should like to do is to thank noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill. Some have spoken not very kindly about it; some have spoken very kindly, but it certainly has made for extremely good debate. I think we are all now a great deal clearer in our minds than we were before the debate started. There
1114
are one or two points to which I should, very briefly, like to refer. The first matter is one of the matters raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, about what I called a "conscience clause", where the mother would be able to object if she had proper feelings of objection. As I mentioned in my first speech, that is a point which I thought should be considered between now and the Committee stage, and if some reasonable Amendment were drafted along those lines, I should be prepared to accept it.
It has been suggested that the certificate could be used before the court, even if it gave a negative result, because one wants to get the full benefit of the test. I shall be pleased to consider some Amendment of this sort before the Committee stage if one can be put forward. I do not think that I said that the Bill would cut down the prison population, but that it "might conceivably" cut down the prison population.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, with great respect, I merely said that the noble Lord's idea was ingenious.
LORD AMULREE: Another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was whether protection against fraud and conspiracy was good enough. Again, I agree that this has to be made as foolproof as humanly possible. I think that the penalty imposed in the Bill is not big enough. This is a matter which could be considered, and I am prepared to move an Amendment strengthening this in due course.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for the kind things he said about the Bill and for the way in which he explained several points, which I had not gone into, so clearly and fully that he made the Bill far more simple to your Lordships. The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, put a difficult question to me. He asked why the Bill did not apply to Scotland. The answer is that I really do not know, but I think that the reason was that when we were drafting the Bill we, felt that there was no one expert enough in questions of Scottish law to venture to make the Bill applicable to Scotland as well as to England. But I am sure that if the Bill becomes law here, it will be possible for a similar Bill to be introduced by the noble Duke to make the same provisions apply to Scotland.

1115
Lastly, I would mention that the expenses of the Board would not be great. As I explained in my first speech, they will be merely to pay the travelling expenses to members. There is no contemplation of salaries or a secretariat or anything like that, so that the cost of this measure, if it comes ninto force, would be the cost of test, the medical cost and
Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAND COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

POST OFFICE BILL
5.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, as this Bill reaches the conclusion of its passage
1116
whatever legal costs there may be, and the expenses of the Board. I have done what I can to reply to the various points raised by noble Lords, and I hope that the Bill will now be read a second time.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 2.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Merthyr, L.

Airedale, L.

Elliot of Hardwood, B.

Meston, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Exeter, M.

Milverton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Falmouth, V.

Netherthorpe, L.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

Newall, L.

Archibald, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newton, L.

Atholl, D.

Fortescue, E.

Northesk, E.

Auckland, L.

Freyberg, L.

Peddie, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Gifford, L.

Ravensdale of Kedleston, B.

Bathurst, E.

Gosford, E.

Rea, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Blackford,L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Saltoun, L.

Bossom, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Shackleton, L.

Boston, L.

Jellicoe, E

Shepherd, L.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Killearn, L.

Silkin, L.

Cawley, L.

Latham, L.

Somers, L.

Citrine, L.

Lawson, L.

Soulbury, V.

Colwyn, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Stonham, L.

Conesford, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lothian, M.

Swinton, E.

Crathorne, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Taylor, L. [Teller.]

Denning, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tenby, V.

Digby, L.

Margesson, V.

Torrington, V.

Dynevor, L.

Merrivale, L.

Williams, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Longford, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B. [Teller.]

through your Lordships' House, I should like Ito offer a few observations which I assure your Lordships will be brief. May I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, on the pleasant and helpful way in which he conducted the Bill through the various processes in your Lordships' House? It is the case that the Bill was not controversial; that there was general agreement as to its purpose and object. I suppose that I provided the only element of controversy, and that I shall refer to. However, I think we all wish to convey satisfaction that the Post Office will henceforth be carried on with greater commercial freedom than has hitherto been the case. The Bill, I suppose, could be called a charter of wider emancipation from the Treasury; and I am sure your Lordships would like to go out from this House to all those engaged in the wide, very creditable and worthy activities of the Post Office our good wishes under

1117
their widened freedom and widened dispensation.
The only element of the Bill about which I am concerned and disappointed is the rather shabby treatment by the Government of local authorities as regards liabilities for rates. I was surprised at the doctrine which, for the first time in my hearing, at all events, was propounded by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald: that because a hereditament does next show a profit, and because it happens to be a convenience for the public, it therefore should not be assessable for rates. That is at variance with the whole theory and structure of the law on rating. I am moved to refer to the circumstance of a public convenience. It is convenient for the public, but it does not show a profit; and yet it is assessable. I am sure that when the Rating and Valuation Bill now being considered in another place comes to your Lordships' House, this question will be raised again. There is no reason, in ray submission, why the Post Office should not pay rates in the same way as other public undertakings. With those reservations, I wish the Bill and the Post Office every good luck.
5.10 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Latham, for his welcome and for his kind words to myself. With regard to the references to-clay, and at the Committee stage, on the rating of Post Office property, I did my best on the Committee stage to assure noble Lords that the Post Office will effectively pay, and local authorities effectively receive, payments in lieu of rates on the Post Office. This is fully in accordance with the practice affecting all Government Departments, of which, of course, the Post Office will remain one. I am not aware that the general practice affecting Government Departments has been regarded as shabby in the past or why it should be now, and it is really that departure—
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, if I may say so, the Government should hear the local authority representatives.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That, in fact, is the departure which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, is asking us, on behalf of local authorities, to make, as it affects the Post Office. I can understand that the local authorities may from time to time
1118
wish to express views on the precise amounts they should receive, and I feel certain that my right honourable and learned friend will be pleased to consider any views of that kind that may be expressed to him.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed

SUICIDE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY
5.13 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE rose to draw attention to the problems of the electrical industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset I think I should mention that I have no interest to declare with regard to the electrical industry. I say this because in the past I have raised the question of electricity in traction, or the question of electrical forms of traction, several times in your Lordships' House. But to-day I should like to raise a wider issue—that of the industry's position in our national economy, as well as certain of its problems. It is one of our key industries, supplying a diversity of products, ranging from electric switches and electronic controls to a nuclear power station. The British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers Association's export catalogue lists over 1,000 different products.
I think the importance of the electrical industry in this country can be assessed in the following figures. The total output value last year of the industry was in excess of £1,600 million. The number of workers employed is nearly 800,000, which is some 9 per cent. of the total employment in this country's manufacturing industries, whilst exports last year reached the figure of £293·4 million—that is, over 10 per cent. of our total exports in manufactured goods. Over the last eight years, more than £2,000 million of British electrical products have been sold overseas. In research, it spent £33 million in 1955, and in 1958 the figure rose to £64 million. Those figures do not include research undertaken by the Central Electricity Generating Board. It is the largest industrial employer of scientists

1119
and technicians. In 1959, 13,380 qualified scientists and engineers were employed, and in 1960 a survey showed that for every scientist or engineer, the industry employed four technicians. The figure of 13,380 scientists and engineers represents 21 per cent. of the total in the manufacturing industry.
Electrical manufacture has a high technological content, and there is still a need for more qualified personnel. Apart from the large sums that have to be spent on research and development there is a need, too, for considerable capital expenditure if we are to maintain our technical lead. To achieve this, in certain highly technical fields the manufacturers are dependent upon experience gained at home in the development and application of new and advanced designs, for instance with regard to power station plant. On the other hand, any pressure on profit margins, which can occur when one is dealing with only one or two large and important concerns, can, or may, hamper the industry's necessary research and capital investment programmes. In turn, the industry's low profit margins may affect its ability to subsidise, in effect, its export prices with a view to remaining competitive in world markets.
With regard to exports, as our nationalised electricity and transport undertakings are the only home customers for certain types of equipment, your Lordships will appreciate the effect their programmes can have on the export prospects of that sector of the electrical industry. Your Lordships are certainly well aware of the reappraisal of the nuclear power programme, and of the uncertainty prevailing with regard to the railway electrification programme. The nuclear power programme was initially set out in the 1955 White Paper, Cmd. 9389, expanded in 1957, Cmnd. 132, and again modified in 1960, Cmnd. 1083. The first Central Electricity Generating Board Report and Accounts, in paragraph 25, rightly says that
"changes in the Board's construction programmes are bound to affect the industries concerned and ultimately their organisation if the changes are sufficiently far-reaching."
Their last Report and Accounts goes on to say, in paragraph 33, that
"flexibility in the nuclear programme is only available in long-term planning and that to
1120
draw attention to the scope for flexibility in the long run is not to imply that frequent revisions are desirable or indeed possible."
The latter refers to the balance between nuclear and coal-fired plant, but it would apply equally well to the question of the growing size of reactors.
These capital investment programmes of the nationalised industries are also varied from time to time, as your Lordships are well aware, by Her Majesty's Government as a means of regulating the economic system. Another means lies in variations in hire purchase controls. But these variations in Government policy have caused uncertainty in the industry and compelled hasty readjustments of production and planning, which lead to increased production costs and may lead to inefficiency and also to strained labour relations. These variations can also seriously affect our exports, for the manufacturers are dependent on a successful and stable home market. With regard to railway equipment and generating plant, the manufacturers are largely dependent on the activities of the nationalised industries, and higher efficiencies are dependent on technical advances. Last year 36 per cent. (in capacity) of the turbo-generating plant produced in this country was despatched overseas.
Looking to the future with regard to railway electrical equipment, one finds that prospects exist over the next few years for approximately £190 million of overseas business. One further good sign is that there seems to be a growing recognition by manufacturers and the nationalised industries that in present world conditions co-operation between all sectors of the industry is essential for a really effective export drive. I might insist, en passant, that such products are an ideal form of British export endeavour as they are mainly of a technical and highly developed nature. The Government's policy is, as your Lordships are well aware, to promote an economic growth at a pace dictated by the need to maintain a rough balance between supply and demand, and I would recognise the need for economic controls at a period when demand tends to increase at a faster rate than our available resources. But some are very discriminatory, and I am particularly thinking of hire purchase controls, for on overall consumption they act to a very limited extent whilst acting to a very marked degree, and very

1121
quickly, too, on a narrow sector of our economic activity.
I should like to show this by referring to a few figures. In 1959, a boom-year with regard to electrical domestic appliances and so forth, total consumer expenditure was £15,715 million, whilst consumer expenditure on electrical goods and appliances, furniture and cars was only £1,301 million—that is, 8 per cent. only of the total. In April, 1960, the Government reintroduced hire purchase controls, and if one considers the following six months' period, for instance, compared with the same period in 1959, one sees that total consumer expenditure rose by 5 per cent. whilst consumer expenditure on electrical goods and appliances fell 13 per cent. It fell only 13 per cent. because consumers switched their demand from heavier types of electrical appliances to lighter types such as electric irons, kettles and so on, for the consumer demand for vacuum cleaners, for instance, fell by 33 per cent., and for washing machines 37 per cent. I am sorry to weary your Lordships with these details, but I should like to stress this point of how it affects that part of the industry.
I should now like to show the effect that the lack of stability of the hire purchase plan has had, or does have, on exports and imports (in other words, on our balance of payments) so far as electrical appliances are concerned. With regard to refrigerators, in 1959, the boom-year for that kind of expenditure, exports fell to 95,000 from 126,000 in 1958. On the other hand, imports rose from 2,000 in 1958 to 125,000 in 1959. In other words, foreign manufacturers cashed in on the high peak of the market. This high peak followed an artificially created period of depressed demand in 1956–57, so that manufacturers were unable to cope with the peak, which had the effect, too, that some manufacturers tended to divert some of their exports to the home market.
I should like to go back only as far as February, 1955, when hire purchase controls were again reintroduced. There have been since that date many variations in hire purchase controls: in July of the same year, in February, 1956, in September, 1958, and again in October, 1958, when they were once more removed. As I said earlier on, a boom-period followed, and in April, 1960,
1122
controls were reintroduced, with a deposit of 20 per cent. and a two-year repayment period. The repayment period is now three years, but that change from two years to three years has had no effect whatsoever on demand with regard to the domestic appliances sector of the industry. Since 1955, there has been a steady increase in total consumer expenditure.
I must say that I think ray noble friend Lord St. Oswald would be horrified if he could see against that picture the jagged curve of demand during 1955 for the heavier type of electrical domestic appliance. The graph, which is available in the Printed Paper Office, shows high peaks and low troughs. There would seem to be strong ground for a stabilised hire-purchase plan which would be allowed to operate for a reasonable period with minimum variation. Suitable terms for the domestic appliance industry would be an initial deposit of 10 per cent. and a three-year repayment period. With this there would still remain a stabilising influence on demand, but the industry could expand on solid foundations with rational planning and development. I think that this climate of confidence within the industry would assist towards greater efforts for expanding our exports.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord excuse my interrupting? With regard to the 10 per cent. and the period of three years to which he referred, are they both approved by the industry generally?
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, they are approved by the domestic appliance industry. I did not ask for a change with regard to the motor-car industry. At the moment I am concerned purely with hire-purchase controls which affect the durable form of consumer goods made by the electrical industry.
LORD LATHAM: So I may take it that it has the approval of the electrical industry?
LORD MERRIVALE: Yes. With a higher deposit than 10 per cent. the demand is artifically depressed to a level which is detrimental to the normal development and expansion of the industry.
It must be remembered that the electrical industry is one of the most important "growth" industries on which

1123
Britain's future prosperity depends. I would therefore humbly suggest that the industry deserves special consideration by Her Majesty's Government, for this country needs an efficient and prosperous electrical industry. It has proved its vitality by a rapid rate of technical advance and also by improved productivity. There is a danger, too, that instability in the fields of electrical power generation, railway electrification and domestic appliances, combined with any tendency to exert pressure on profit margins, may hamper the industry's research and capital investment programme.
In conclusion, I would ask Her Majesty's Government (I am speaking of the home market) to consider effectively stabilising their hire-purchase controls at a level and for a period of time consistent with the normal development and expansion of the industry. I would also ask them to bear very much in mind the effect that pressure on profit margins can have on the industry's research and capital investment programme.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but would he elaborate somewhat on what he means by "pressure on profit margins"? Pressure from whom, and by what means?
LORD MERRIVALE: There can be a certain pressure—I am not saying there is—on profit margins when, with regard to certain sectors of the industry or certain equipment, they are supplying on the home market only one or two large and important customers. Does that answer the noble Lord's point?
LORD LATHAM: So the pressure comes from the nationalised industries, does it?
LORD MERRIVALE: It could do. As I said, it could hamper the capital investment programme, and also it may have the effect of hampering the industry's capacity to subsidise export prices with a view to remaining competitive in world markets. Finally, I would urge Her Majesty's Government to initiate consultation, with a view to setting up an organisation similar to the United Kingdom Railway Advisory Service, which would group the Central Electricity Generating Board, the Board of
1124
Trade and the industry, for the purpose of giving advice to those countries requiring it on matters affecting power stations and generating plant—in other words, power supply installations, including transmission. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.37 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, this morning I attended an electrical exhibition at Earl's Court. In some respects that exhibition was unique; no members of the public were admitted. But it constituted what I heard described as the biggest trade show that had ever been held in London, and, if not the biggest, one of the biggest electrical exhibitions that have been held in the world. I was most interested to see the number of overseas buyers who were clearly interested in the many products on view, which covered the whole of the electrical industry and its many ramifications. Some 460 leading manufacturers had exhibits there. It was unique in this sense, too; that it was sponsored by a registered trade union.
I have said that because I wanted to lead up to a characteristic of the electrical industry which is quite highly developed—I mean, the spirit of co-operation which exists among its many different units, including the trade unions. It is the habit in that industry for all the different sections to collaborate together and to face their common problems. Some of your Lordships will be aware that every year there is held what is called the British Electrical Power Convention, which represents some twenty-four associations covering every conceivable type of electrical activity. Again, the trade unions are regularly represented at the Convention, which usually attracts nearly 1,000 delegates. Among the presidents of that Convention have been Members of your Lordships' House. The distinguished guests have included a Prime Minister and several Ministers, including almost every Minister of Power. The themes at the Convention are not technical. There is a certain amount that has to be technical but, in the broad sense, the themes are of general national interest. Far example, in the last four years the themes have been: "Electricity in the national economy"; "Electricity and world

1125
progress—Britain's contribution"; "Electricity: its contribution to the standard of living"; and "Electricity—the new horizon", covering manufacture, supply, export and electricity in the home.
From what I have said, your Lordships will see that this industry, with its close co-operation, is in the habit of trying to fit itself into the national setting and, indeed, the world setting. It is very conscious of its public responsibility. It has taken voluntary steps far beyond any legislative compulsion to ensure the safety and efficiency of its products; and some of your Lordships will remember that the Molony Committee commended the electricity industry generally on the care it had taken to ensure that its products in the domestic sphere in particular, were safe and could be handled without danger. Recently a new body was inaugurated—the British Electrical Approvals Board. That Board has already got to work and is type-testing different kinds of domestic products and, again, trying to show the ordinary householder what products she can safely purchase with some confidence as to their reliability, efficiency and safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has already referred to the importance of the industry in the national economy, and he spoke of the manufacturing industry, with which we are primarily concerned here to-day, as employing 800,000 people. I suppose if we talked of the electricity industry as a whole we should add the 200,000 who are employed in electrical supply in the United Kingdom. That makes one million people who directly have their livelihood in this virile industry. As many of your Lordships know, I am connected, in a part-time capacity, with the supply industry; but that industry and the manufacturing section are so closely interdependent upon one another that it would be unthinkable if we were to regard ourselves on the one side, as the nationalised Boards, as operating one policy, and privately owned companies operating another. We try to subordinate, so far as we can, any differences of view on that point and to collaborate in the general interest of the public.
Last year the manufacturing industry delivered 5,146 megawatts (or 5 million kilowatts, to put it in more common terminology) of electrical plant. That is
1126
nearly double the amount supplied to the Central Electricity Generating Board, but of course there are other public bodies in this country, such as the Scottish Boards and, of course, the Atomic Energy Authority; and much of the smaller plant is still used in private industry to generate electricity. Much of that production went to the Commonwealth—in fact, while I was in Australia and New Zealand some two years ago, I had the pleasure of seeing much of our electrical plant being installed there. I might add that I was somewhat concerned when I saw other instances of plant made on the Continent of Europe, and civil engineering firms from the United States being employed on work which I thought could quite well have been undertaken by our own British firms.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has talked of the heavy cost of research in the industry and, of course, it is axiomatic that, by and large, the industry that makes considerable expenditure on research is a healthy and vigorous body. It does not always follow that the spending of millions on research automatically produces immediate results, but, broadly speaking, those industries which starve themselves of research are usually not at the highest point of efficiency. I think it probable that the electrical manufacturing industry spends more upon research than any other industry in this country. It is true that aviation spends a larger nominal sum, but it is sponsored research and not research paid for directly out of the proceeds of the industry itself. I should not like to venture a figure as to the cost of research and development in the nuclear field. We have, on the one side, the Atomic Energy Authority, which is largely, but not quite exclusively, a research organisation; and on the other hand we have the large electrical companies who, faced with this new type of generation, have necessarily had to spend their millions in furthering their technique.
I have read that if the nuclear programme proceeds at its present pace and is not enlarged, it may be that by 1965 or 1970 some 30 per cent. of the industry's resources will be spent upon nuclear research. From what I have said, and what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, I feel that we can reasonably claim that the electricity-manufacturing industry, like the supply side,

1127
is a progressive industry. It is dealing with an indispensable agency. In my days as Chairman of the British Electricity Authority, I used to be amused to hear the rather stifling murmurs from time to time from the Treasury about our reaching saturation point, the point where the demand would rapidly fall off because everybody's requirements for electricity would have been met. That is equivalent to saying there is a limit to human demands. Although I do not expect to live to be as old as Methuselah is reputed to have been, I do not believe that that result is likely to occur.
It is an agency which has immensely improved the standard of living of our people in all kinds of directions, as well as in indirect ways. The domestic standard, for example, in the post-war period has been almost revolutionised by the extended use of electricity. It is commonly known that the consumption of electricity doubles itself every ten years. But that is not completely automatic. That result is attained by a great deal of effort on the part of those connected with the industry. It is, of course, a planned industry. I do not know whether I have previously said this, but if I have I hope your Lordships will excuse my repeating it. One of the happiest experiences I had when I became Chairman of the British Electricity Authority was to find that, working behind the scenes, there was a small committee looking ahead to 1970 as to the probable development of the industry, and the means of meeting the anticipated demand.
I know, and it has been shown so many times in discussion, that Her Majesty's Government do not like planning. They have a healthy British dislike of looking too far ahead. Our characteristic is supposed to be our genius for improvisation. I believe that in modern circumstances something more than that is necessary for economic survival. But I realise quite well the limitations of planning. I know that planning may be upset by events which could not be brought into contemplation when the planning was entered upon. And I think it can be said without acerbity that our present Government, to say the least, have done a good deal of upsetting of well-laid plans in the electrical industry as a whole. We have
1128
had the credit squeeze, the changes in the bank rate, and the seven changes in hire-purchase restrictions since 1955, which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. We have had cuts in capital investment; we have had attempts to impose upon industry, publicly owned industry, an annual programme of capital development, which is an utter impossibility. We have had a slowing down of the nuclear programme, with quite disastrous results to particular companies.
I know perfectly well that some of these things have been inescapable in our economy. Circumstances have arisen in connection with the balance of payments and that sort of thing; a measure of inflation has been going on and I understand quite well the perplexity of a Government dealing with those problems and the tendency to use expedients rather than a well-planned policy. But I am bound to say that in this sphere—railway electrification, for example, comes as the most recent experience—it makes planning impossible. Long-range planning, in the sense of companies expanding their works, and employing additional people, administrative staff, scientists, technicians and all that sort of thing, involves overheads that cannot very quickly be got rid of. It raises all sorts of human problems, too, that I think most decent employers would not wish to encounter.
I think it is possible that there might be scope for some form of closer collaboration in respect of estimating the growth of the electrical supply industry. The supply side has to estimate for a number of years ahead the probable growth in electrical demand. But I am not at this moment quite clear in my mind just how close is the collaboration with the manufacturers in providing the generators and alternators and all the other apparatus to meet that demand. There may be some room for improvement there. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has told us that electrical manufacturing is one of the largest of the exporters. That is perfectly true. There was an £8 million increase on the export credit side in 1960. But he has reminded your Lordships—and I hope that you will not lose sight of the fact—that there was a £14 million increase in electrical imports. I am very sorry to see

1129
that, because, without saying that all apparatus that comes from abroad has the soiled reputation that "Made in Germany" used to have before the war, at the same time I prefer the durability of the British products.
The Association of the manufacturers, which is commonly called B.E.A.M.A.—the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association—has made strenuous efforts in this field; and I venture to suggest that if these efforts had been made on the same scale and with the same intensity in other industries, this country would be in a very much stronger exporting position than it is to-day. I see that they have run a series of study courses on the Structure of Industry, apparently an elementary thing. But for whom have these courses been designed? They have been designed for British consular officials, our marketing officials attached to the various Embassies abroad, so that they can be thoroughly familiar with just what the problems are and the means of meeting the problem of exports.
I believe that some 250 commercial and consular officials have attended the Head Office of this organisation, B.E.A.M.A., to study that matter. They have made a most intensive study of the Common Market. I have seen that study. It was compiled by an economist of standing, and anyone can see from reading that what a grim struggle there is going to be ahead of us in trying to out-distance the competitors who are members of the Common Market. France and Germany have improved their electrical position very substantially indeed. Germany, in fact, is exporting about 11 per cent. of her products to the British Commonwealth. That is something which I regret to see. I do not know whether it is commonly known that the Secretariat of the Common Market number some 1,600 people: 1,600 people working away all the time, quite properly, to see how they can strengthen this association of the nations that form the Common Market. I will not go any further in that direction, in view of the debate that is to take place to-morrow. I know that we shall then be concentrating upon exports, and I will not push the point beyond that. But I repeat what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale: that in order to have an effective, competitive industry able to hold its own in the ex-
1130
port market we must have a wide and expanding home market.
I see that the President of the Board of Trade said, not in another place but outside it, that the home market depends on exports without which there could be no stable home market, and the best way to stabilise the home market was to have the push and go of a good world export trade. That phrase can probably be justified. If we did not import we should not have food, and we should not have raw materials to the extent we need them. That statement is subject to qualification, but everybody knows that we cannot feed ourselves as a country. I can quite see the logic behind that statement. But, really, it is reversing things and putting the cart before the horse. You must cover your overheads in large-scale production on your home market in order to compete effectively in exports. That is such an elementary point that I am sure it will be brought out by some of those who will speak in the debate to-morrow. In view of what has been said I will not extend that point to-day.
I am pleased to say that I think I can discern in a public reference I saw some days ago attributed to the President of the Board of Trade that he has some sympathy with the manufacturers at the absence of stability there has been during these recent years. Naturally he cannot pledge the Government, and I do not expect that anybody here could pledge the Government, as to what is going to happen in regard to our financial and economic policy. That is a matter for decision in a few weeks' time. But I am quite certain that the debate which took place in this House on the Address in reply to the gracious Speech showed that there was a very great disturbance of mind on the part of many taking part about the economic policy which we had been pursuing in this country in recent years. I know that the Government are anxious to help the exporting industries. I am perfectly certain that they are sincere in that purpose, and they are doing quite a lot to try to stimulate the various Government agencies and keep them on their toes. But I only hope that in the weeks that are to come they will do something even more tangible to help the country's industries, and particularly the electrical industry, in the export market.
6.0 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, both for introducing this subject and for the factual and fair way he has presented his case, and for the large number of convincing figures that he has given in support of it. It has also given us the opportunity to hear my noble friend Lord Citrine give us a comprehensive and encouraging account of the cooperation between the supply side of the industry, publicly owned, and the electrical equipment side, privately owned. I was very pleased indeed to hear his well-deserved tribute to B.E.A.M.A., quite an extraordinary trade association which this year, I believe, enjoys its Golden Jubilee. I fully agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, except for one point. He asked the Government to give special consideration to this industry. I would submit, my Lords, that this industry does not need special consideration: it wants sensible treatment. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, would not regard it as being special for this Government to give any industry sensible treatment—and that is precisely what the electrical industry wants.
To-morrow, as my noble friend has mentioned, Lord Bessborough hopes to persuade the Government to mount a national crusade to make the people of Britain more export-conscious. That is a very worthy objective, but there is no need whatever for a crusade of that kind in the electrical industry. Their biggest problem is to persuade the Government to get out of the way. The report of the industry, to which I have just referred, makes it clear that their biggest job, in fact, is to persuade the Government not senselessly and arbitrarily to halt their development and progress and thus cripple their ability to export. Here, I must entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Citrine that it is impossible to tell an industry of this kind, with the tremendous amount of capital expenditure and planning that is needed, to start with your exports and then come back and look after the home market. They must start with a base here.
This is a most important industry. It is a comparatively new, vital, "growth" industry, with all those 800,000 employees and over one-tenth of our total exports of manufactured goods. As
1132
it seems to me, the Government takes a look at this growth, this prosperity, this enterprise, and says, "This won't do. We'll soon put a stop to that"; and so they make the electrical industry their target, almost their first target, for the application of the "Stop-go-stop" technique which has been developed so disastrously by successive Tory Chancellors of the Exchequer. Now, as my noble friend Lord Citrine made so clear, this industry is not "feather-bedded", and does not need price support or tariff protection.
The noble Lord mentioned the expenditure of £64 million on research, and my noble friend compared that with the cost of research in the aircraft industry. What my noble friend refrained from saying was this: that if the aircraft industry, with its sponsored research, says, "We need £1 million for research into (shall we say?) Sea Slug", and, at the end of the day, it costs £46 million, then we, the taxpayers, pay that; but if the members of B.E.A.M.A. go above their estimate, then it comes out of their pockets, out of the overheads of the industry.
All this industry is asking for is that the Government should create stable conditions. It also asks for the approving of and the adherence to long-term investment programmes—programmes fixed and adhered to for five years ahead. In railway electrification they are still fixed for only one year ahead—indeed, I do not even know that at the moment they are fixed as far ahead as that. They should be fixed in that way so that the factories can be built, the machinery installed and production lines operated on something like their capacity basis. It is only in this way that an industry of this kind, of this size, can compete on fair terms with its overseas competitors. It seems that these are conditions little enough to ask the Government to provide, but it is a request which has never yet been granted. Indeed, it would seem to me at times that if the Government had decided deliberately (and I know they have not) to set themselves to disrupt this industry as much as possible, they could scarcely have done more damage than they have done over the last few years.
It has already been mentioned that there is the closest identity of interests

1133
between the manufacturers of heavy electrical equipment and the nationalised electricity supply and transport undertakings, and I was very happy to hear from my noble friend Lord Citrine of the constant efforts which are being made to improve that co-operation. Over the last few years the Government have approved major capital expansion programmes, and the contracts have been placed. Then Whitehall has changed its mind: and the axe has fallen. Thus, the nuclear programme, effectively, has been halved, and the railway electrification programme has been held up a long time. It is true that the London—Manchester line plan is now going to he carried through, but nobody knows yet what is going to happen about the remainder of railway electrification. There are enormous losses caused by changes of this kind. It is all very well saying, as my noble friend Lord Citrine, in his generosity, has said, that some of these things are unavoidable. In my opinion, they are avoidable if the thing is properly planned and properly thought-out beforehand. In railway electrification alone over the last few years, £5 million has been spent on research—that is, £15 million on research, in that one single department; and there has been a tremendous amount of other expenditure.
My Lords, the losses and the frustration, the stopping and the starting, and all the consequent misfortunes, are not confined to the home market. These losses affect our exports, too; and, in my view, the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport has done real damage to our electrical trade overseas through this policy. As has already been said, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, there is a potential market in railway electrification goods amounting to some £190 million, and that is a market which we ought to be well placed to capture. In this section, of course—the heavy electrical goods section—the industry is almost entirely dependent on the orders from the nationalised undertakings, because, by the very reason of things, they are the sole buyers. There is no alternative home market, and without a good basic home demand it is virtually useless to think of exports. If, therefore, the Government really want to help this industry to export, they must find some other way of remedying their mistakes
1134
in financial policy; and, once they have approved a capital programme, they should stick to it. They should also give a firm assurance (I do not think this point has been touched on yet) that they will not again place the supply of electricity in jeopardy.
One of the most certain things in this uncertain world, as has been well illustrated by my noble friend, is that the demand for electrical power is increasing and will go on increasing; and the Electricity Board plans to meet that increased demand with their short and long-term plans. But the Government's restrictions, and the changes in the capital programme, have left the margin between supply and peak demand very narrow indeed. If, because of this, there should be any power cuts, there will be some very red faces in Whitehall, and some very angry ones among the manufacturers and domestic consumers if they are denied the supply that they were led to believe they could count on. And, of course, it would be another serious and quite undeserved set-back for the manufacturers of electrical equipment.
The other section which has suffered so bitterly from the Government's policy is, of course, that section of the industry manufacturing domestic capital equipment, the consumer durables, such as refrigerators and washing machines. As we all know, a very high proportion of these are sold on hire purchase, I would say at once that I am very strongly opposed to any form of no-deposit credit trading. I think there should always be, in this kind of trading, an initial deposit. Indeed, experience in the electrical industry has shown that an initial deposit has little effect on the long-term demand for appliances, because there is a steadily rising tide of demand, which obviously accounts for the increase in the demand for electricity, and the rise in the demand for appliances is never seriously checked by normal trade fluctuations.
Unfortunately, all the changes have been sudden, artificial, and damaging, caused by variations in Government policy. Since February, 1955, there have been no fewer than nine changes in the hire purchase deposit terms for electrical goods. Anyone who has actively concerned himself in any industry which sells goods affected by hire purchase has some idea of what that means. You

1135
have planned for a certain level of demand under conditions which are existing, and, so far as you know, are going to continue to exist. Your lines are operating; your workpeople are employed; your markets and your customers are there for those goods, at certain prices; your salesmen are out; your catalogues are printed; your export arrangements are made. Then suddenly, at a quarter to four in the afternoon, you get a telephone call and you find that all these conditions are changed—arbitrarily changed. It is nothing to do with you at all. That has happened nine times since February, 1955, and changes have been made from nothing to 33⅓ per cent. initial deposit. Really, I think it is quite unpardonable. I know it does not apply merely to refrigerators and washing machines; it applies also to furniture, motor cars, and all sorts of things. But I repeat, nine times since the beginning of 1955 has that happened. I would say that the most disastrous change was in 1958 when, in preparation for the 1959 Election, the initial deposit was removed altogether. Yes; that sort of thing enters into it.
LORD LATHAM: And it was a wicked thing.
LORD STONHAM: Indeed, it was a wicked thing, and it has also been done in agriculture and other industries. It was done for political reasons. All hire purchase restrictions were removed, and that, of course, released a flood of demand which, for a time, exceeded home supplies. It also opened the door to a flood of imports. Then, after demand had passed its peak, the Government put back an initial deposit of 20 per cent. What were the results? One result was a drop of 40 per cent. in home demand, with firms manufacturing on a large scale, at that pressure, and with that kind of outlay. We had all the misery of over-production, sackings and short-time working. My noble friend Lord Latham spoke of pressure on profit margins. If you are operating at 90 per cent., 95 per cent., or even 100 per cent. capacity, you work out your prices accordingly. Then, suddenly, you get orders for only six-tenths of your production, and it may well be that in order to keep certain production
1136
lines going you have to accept orders virtually at an uneconomic price. But in addition, we had this flood of imports. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, pointed to the extraordinary rise in one year of from 2,000 to 125,000 washing machines.
LORD MERRIVALE: Refrigerators.
LORD STONHAM: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. That makes it worse, because they are twice the price of a washing machine. It also coincided with a reduction in the import duty on those commodities.
Now, my Lords, am I not justified in saying that if the Government had deliberately designed to do all they possibly could to disrupt and cripple this industry, they could not have done more? The imported appliances still clutter the shops; they cannot sell them. And last year there was an increase in imports of £14 million worth of these goods. For that situation the Government are entirely responsible. It is all very well to say that they had to do this kind of thing to this industry. What a way to run a country, and what a way to hamper an industry—all to no useful purpose! I think it must be accepted by anyone who is fair, reasonably-minded and unbiased that the arbitrary use of hire purchase restrictions on selected industries with a narrow front, as an instrument of fiscal policy, is totally unjustified and must surely be abandoned. Why pick out particular industries simply because they are growth industries? They are the very industries on which we mainly depend to balance our overseas payments account. But when you are in a little trouble, to pick on them as being the readiest ones to get you out of the trouble which false financial policy has created is only making matters worse, and it becomes a vicious circle.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will give some indication that these industries will not, in future, he selected in this way. I hope he will submit to his right honourable friend that two things must be done: first, that the initial deposit should be reduced to 10 per cent.; and that the Government will give an assurance that conditions will not be altered for some time ahead—and I would say for some years ahead. Let

1137
us not be mealy-mouthed about it. This industry wants five years in which to plan, if it is going to go progressively on and play its full rôle in our country and its exports. I submit that this reduction to 10 per cent as an initial deposit is necessary to increase basic home demand to a level which will ensure the most efficient production and thus enable us to be fully competitive overseas. Given stability in credit controls, this growth industry can design for high-volume production, with the advantages of forward planning and extensive tooling. Research development can be carried out on a scale which is impossible under low-volume conditions, and new techniques can be developed.
The industry has proved its quality. It has fought back. One proof of this is that West Germany, one of the toughest markets in Europe, is our biggest single export market for washing machines. I do not think you would want any more proof of the quality of this industry. The total exports of domestic appliances last year increased by 27 per cent. That is an extraordinary achievement; but it requires new factories, special tooling, and heavy capital outlay. That is one of the factors in the turnover increase, of which I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will tell us. He will say that, despite all these dreadful things, this industry has managed to increase its total turnover on the year by 7 or 8 per cent. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that it ought not to be the case that an industry increases despite the worst that the Government can do. It ought to be the case of an industry increasing to a spectacular extent because of the assistance which the Government have: been able to afford.
I say that this is an efficient, progressive industry, and if the Government will not help these basic industries, they should not hinder. We are only at the beginning—I think my noble friend Lord Citrine will agree with this—of a great electrical development in this country. If this industry can have the certainty of a steadily expanding home market and of wholehearted technical and commercial co-operation with the electricity supply industry, then it will meet and beat world competition and build a large and expanding export trade.
6.20 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Merrivale for putting down this debate and all three noble Lords who have spoken, with their great knowledge and experience, on this important subject. I say at once that I agree with a great deal the three noble Lords have said. Anyone who has learned the smallest amount, the amount I have been able to learn rather intensively during the last ten days, about the electrical engineering industry is bound to admire the enterprise and determination which all those engaged in it—directors, engineers, scientists and craftsmen—have demonstrated.
As noble Lords have said, it is among our major industrial assets. That is reflected in the figures for output and exports quoted at the beginning by my noble friend. No industry can achieve those results by standing still. In many respects, the industry has been moving not merely with the times but ahead of the times and leading the rest of the world. Although my noble friend Lord Merrivale painted this same picture with appreciative strokes, he did not, I thought, describe it as the confident industry which I believe it is. I would say that it was confident but not complacent. In an age of global revolution—in this case, technological revolution—no national industry can afford to be complacent, and no national industry can advance, or even survive, without certain difficulties. The industries of other nations are grappling with broadly the same problems. They are having their ups and downs, as we are. Our own electrical industry, which is under discussion to-day, is showing a resilience and enterprise which merits success. What noble Lords have asked is whether Her Majesty's Government are doing enough to hearten and strengthen that enterprise, whether we are doing as much as other Governments are doing for their enterprises in other countries.
What the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested, in his closing words, was that the success that has been achieved was achieved despite the Government's efforts, rather than through them. That is an impression which I hope to dispel before I sit down. The current problems are various, as noble Lords have-described; and they affect different

1139
branches of the industry, sometimes overlapping, sometimes individual to a particular branch. For that reason, I have found it very difficult to answer this debate, either as a series of problems or as a whole, and I can only hope that your Lordships will be able to follow me as I pick my way through the varied problems.
My noble friend Lord Merrivale spoke of the tribulations of the manufacturers of generating plant, due to their dependence on a largely monopoly customer, the C.E.G.B., so far as the home market is concerned. It can be, and has been, argued that the existence of the largest single integrated power system in the world may be a mixed blessing for the manufacturers, but it can hardly be seen as an unrelieved affliction. It has enabled this country to instal very large units of plant, some of the largest in the world, of a highly advanced design and performance, and to embark on the largest nuclear power development scheme in the world. Although, as noble Lords have said, it has had to be cut back in recent years, it is, nevertheless, still the largest in the world. These are superlatives, but they are superlatives that stand up to inspection. The plant manufacturers, of course, have played a part, perhaps an essential part, in this, and noble Lords have implied that they have suffered for it.
How have they suffered for it? It is true that orders for big units of power plant come out at longer intervals than formerly, producing a less even spread of work in the industry and interrupting to some degree the continuity of production. Also, the big units involve less manufacturing per kilowatt than the smaller units provide. In certain cases this, has had the result that in a given order, although the number of kilowatts of generating capacity is greater than in earlier orders, the plant manufacturers are left with spare resources which they cannot easily divert to other purposes. This leaves out of account the fact that the value of the contracts has risen two or three times over the past ten years. It has also been suggested that concentration on these new giant generating plants takes the manufacturers out of the export market, or at least hinders them in that market, since other non-manufacturing countries, potential customers, are unlikely to require such huge plants. I do not think that that argument was
1140
propounded to-day but I have heard it used outside your Lordships' House. I am glad that it was not pressed, because, frankly, it does not in the least convince me. In the first place, when their economic advantages are proved in action, small countries may want these big, plants just as much or more than we do. Already we know that they are saleable overseas.
Eighteen months ago one British firm obtained an order for a 500 megawatt generator for the Tennessee Valley Authority. Other large plants have been ordered in North America. I have been told by those within the industry that they look forward to excellent prospects for these big sets in the export market. The task they have been set by the C.E.G.B. has enabled our firms to become specialists in three fields; the very large generating sets, the super-critical power stations and nuclear power stations, three fields in which there is a minimum of competition. For instance, only two firms in U.S.A. are capable of building the 500 megawatt sets. Moreover, some of the leaders of the industry have spoken to me in most appreciative terms of the C.E.G.B., describing it as
"an understanding operator—knowing well how much research and development costs, and taking it fully into account".
My Lords, that is a direct quote from an interview with a senior member of the industry.
My noble friend Lord Merrivale has spoken of falling margins of profit, and it is true that over the past years profits have fallen from 10 per cent. to 6 per cent.—but there are some other industries who would not complain of 6 per cent., and to give special consideration to the electrical engineering industry on that account alone would I think, be hard to justify. It is right, of course, to point out that it is an adventurous industry, sinking large sums in research and development. In 1958, expenditure on research and development in this industry equalled 9·8 per cent. of the industry's net output, and in the electronics industry the figure was 11·9 per cent. The average for all United Kingdom manufacturing industries was 3·8 percent. Such courageous investment deserves success. But what is most important is that the outlook for the years ahead is good. One firm has at this moment an order book of 4,500 megawatts spread over the next three or four

1141
years; the needs of the country have lately been doubling over a ten-year period, and the indications are that this expansion is likely to go up still faster.
In 1960, the consumption of electricity in England and Wales was over 13 per cent. higher than in the year before, and domestic consumption went up by nearly 16 per cent. That happened in spite of the fact that both ends of the year were part of mild winters, which might have been expected to some extent to counteract consumption. And as an example of how one isolated factor can affect consumption, I am told that on the night of the General Election, October 8, 1959, 8,700 megawatts were being used in England and Wales, compared to 6,600 megawatts at midnight the previous date, due to the television sets being switched on, cups of tea being made and people sitting by their firesides. I mention that only as an indication of how difficult it is sometimes to judge requirements from year to year.
The Board co-operates very closely with the manufacturers, keeping them informed of the size and composition of future programmes and periodic revisions. An annual meeting is held between the members of the Board and the representatives of the plant manufacturers. The great size of the new equipment and the high development costs is leading the companies to pool their resources and adapt themselves to meet changing conditions of the market which have emerged over the past three years, by mergers and other forms of collaboration. In the last two years the number of firms tendering for large boilers has been reduced from eleven to four, and for turbo-alternators from six to four. Joint research plans have been inaugurated by some firms to ensure as far as possible an economic deployment of time, money and effort in the development of new materials and techniques for both conventional and nuclear power generation. It has been suggested that to avoid further waste contracts should be awarded on a rota instead of by tender. The Generating Board has welcomed the steps which the manufacturers have taken to streamline their organisations and improve efficiency, but as a sound business precaution the Board must continue to seek competitive tenders where possible.
1142
Before leaving this particular aspect, I should emphasise that the Central Electricity Generating Board's charter lays upon it the obligation to supply cheap power to the country. Its policy is dictated by that, and it can claim considerable success, and hopes to claim more. The cost of the old 30 megawatt stations was £67 per kilowatt, and it is estimated that the cost per kilowatt of the new giant 500 megawatt stations may fall Ito £40; that is to say, a 40 per cent. drop.
The noble Lords, Lord Merrivale and Lord Stonham, referred to three changes to the nuclear power programme and their effect on the industry. It is very difficult to speak briefly and at the same time adequately on this important issue, and I think I have to settle for the former. For the latest change—that is, the further deferment announced in June of last year—there were two main reasons, both of them persuasive. First, it was clear that the pressure of demand on coal supplies had generally relaxed and oil supply prospects had improved, so that one of the reasons for the acceleration of the programme in 1957 had disappeared. Secondly, although the costs of nuclear power from the stations recently ordered have been falling as expected, the costs of electricity from coal and oil have fallen faster than was expected, due to the technical advances in conventional generation, to some of which I have referred. The net effect is that nuclear power is not expected to become competitive with power from other sources until later than was estimated: nuclear power should become cheaper than conventional power by about 1970. Any Government must observe its duty to the taxpayer, and that duty has demanded adjustments to the programme. All the same, the programme is still to build about 5,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity by 1968, placing one order for a nuclear power station roughly each year.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned railways, and he is concerned over the way they have suffered due to changes in policy. In view of the full way in which this subject was discussed in your Lordships' House on Tuesday of last week, I do not think your Lordships will wish me to refer to it at great length. But I think it should be repeated

1143
that control of this kind is essential when the railways are spending such large sums (£160 million in 1960) on railway modernisation, much of it being provided by the Exchequer, and when revenue deficits of the British Transport Commission, mainly incurred on the railway, are also being met by the Exchequer (to the extent of £105 million in 1960–61).
This control led to some slowing down of work on certain railway projects pending review, but many projects went ahead with little or no delay. It cannot be unreasonable for any Government to look closely at a scheme costing in all some £175 million to make sure that money received from the taxpayers is being spent in the best way. As noble Lords are aware, seven weeks ago my right honourable friend announced that the electrification of the main line from Euston to Crewe, Manchester and Liverpool, should go ahead as quickly as is consistent with the best use of resources. This will represent a total cost of £175 million, including some associated station works, part of which contract will also go to the electrical industry. My right honourable friend further declared that the Government's approval of this, the largest scheme of all, should be taken as evidence of the Government's faith not only in modernisation, but in the British electrical manufacturing industry.
My right honourable friend has already set up in the summer of last year a small study group under his own chairmanship to consider railway modernisation. This is not a formal committee. It is a means of enabling the Minister and his advisers to get round a table with a Commission and to consider the place of the railways in the transport system of the country, taking account of trends in other forms of transport and changing social and industrial needs with a view to meeting all those demands. He has in his hands at the moment the B.T.C.'s proposals for investment in railway modernisation, covering the years 1964 to 1964. These proposals cover the whole field of railway modernisation, and very considerable amounts of money are involved.
I think all noble Lords who have spoken have referred to their concern over hire purchase restrictions and changes of policy. The Government recognise that frequent changes
1144
in the level of control are bound to be a dislocating factor. When announcing a partial relaxation of control on January 19, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade said that he thought we had achieved a reasonable set of rules which we could maintain for some time, and he hoped that his statement would give the industry a reasonable basis for their future plans; and I hope it may bring some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who asked for something like that. My right honourable friend has recently met representatives of the manufacturers and has had from them a description of current conditions in the industry. Their views will be carefully considered, but he has told the industry that he is not convinced that a further relaxation (that is, the reduction of the deposit rate to 10 per cent.) is desirable. By definition, restrictions of this kind hit those whose goods sell on hire purchase; but where sales on credit terms create inflationary pressures, it is the Government's responsibility to check those sales. In the end, all regulation of credit and demand is in the interest of everybody, including the manufacturers immediately affected, since the economy would otherwise be exposed to still more violent fluctuation and to the damaging effects of inflation.
The question of exports has been touched on by all speakers, but at no great length. I am acquainted with some of the criticisms that have been made regarding the assistance given to exporters, but as this whole question will be under discussion to-morrow. I feel that this evening I should speak only very briefly. The range of services provided by the Government for prospective exporters is too wide and too long for me to catalogue to-day and is, I assume, well known to noble Lords who have spoken. I should point out that the major contribution is, of course, in the services of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and these also have been shown from time to time to be inadequate.
In that context, I should point out two recent extensions of those services. First, the E.C.G.D. has been authorised to ensure credit on longer terms than the normal maximum in cases where this has proved to be necessary—and the operative words are, "where this has proved to be necessary"—in order to enable a

1145
United Kingdom exporter to match the terms offered by a foreign competitor similarly aided by an export credits guarantee institution or equivalent official support. That is rather official language, but in fact what it offers is assistance to match the terms offered by foreign exporters of other countries who also have export credit guarantee facilities at their disposal. Secondly, where a competitor is offering long credit terms which are not backed by an export credits guarantee institution the E.C.G.D. is now authorised for the first time to provide cover for the normal period, leaving the United Kingdom exporter to get the extra cover at his own risk. This was previously not permitted. The Government recognise that there are other genuine problems affecting the supply of credit, and have under consideration both the adequacy of our credit facilities and the terms and conditions of the services provided by E.C.G.D.
Many suggestions have been made as to the aid which the Government might give to exporters. Many of them founder on the principle that it would not be in our interest to start a credit race, a race which would leave no one better off competitively, and would involve everyone laying out his money for longer than was necessary. Financial relief, such as tax concessions, for good exporters is bound to meet broadly with similar objections. My noble friend Lord Merrivale suggested, as I understood it, some kind of advisory body to be formed, comparable to the United Kingdom Railway Advisory Service; and, of course, the industry itself would take the initiative in this. It is not for me to say how my right honourable friend would be ready to help such a body, but I feel certain that I can say he would take an interest in any proposals put forward by the industry.
In my studies of this industry, some of them on the spot during the past ten days, I have been most of all fascinated by aviation electronics and by the electronics industry, which have been barely touched upon in the course of this debate, so that they remain outside its scope. I will save up that collected knowledge, such as it is, and possibly I shall be able to pass it on to your Lordships on another day. In any case, I hope that this is not the last time that I shall be able to express the Govern-
1146
ment's admiration of and the value they set on this unique and virile industry. I feel certain that both the industry and the Government will be grateful for the suggestions which have been made with so much thought and so much feeling by all; and I shall naturally communicate them to my right honourable friend.
6.45 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords opposite who have been kind enough to take part in this debate and also to my noble friend Lord St. Oswald who so kindly took a lot of trouble in collecting information concerning the electrical industry. I think that in all fairness I should say that, with regard to the question of contributions from this side of the House, there were a number of noble Lords who had intended to take part but were unable to do so owing to the fact that the date was not convenient to them because they had to be in other places.
If I may say so, humbly, I think the noble Lords, Lord Citrine, and Lord Stonham, made some very important points, and I was particularly glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, refer to the large number of overseas buyers at the Trade Fair at Earl's Court. The noble Lord also referred to strong cooperation between the supply industry and the manufacturing industry, and I am also glad that he mentioned the excellent co-operation with the trade unions. He said that there was a need for better co-operation between the generating plant manufacturing side and the Electricity Generating Board, and I presume that his remarks will be noted by the co-ordinating committee. I am also glad that he mentioned the fact that considerable research is to be undertaken in the future by the Atomic Energy Authority. I am also particularly glad, having had dealings with the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers Association for several years, that both noble Lords referred to their useful work which started 50 years ago.
Another aspect of importance which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was the fact that £15 million had been spent on research in railway electrification. I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time by stressing points which have been made much better than I could hope to

1147
make them, but I hope Her Majesty's Government will pay particular attention to the variety of points which were made by both noble Lords opposite.
May I turn to one or two points made by my noble friend Lord St. Oswald? I think he said that I did not express confidence in the industry. I thought I had implied it when I said that it was an industry with great vitality. By implication, therefore, I meant that it was an industry which had great confidence in the future. I am glad that my noble friend referred to a number of orders for large generating plants for overseas, and also to the fact that, with regard to large generating plants of the order of 500-megawatts, there were only two firms in the United States who could compete with us in providing that type of plant.
I must say that I was rather disappointed by my noble friend's comments on the hire-purchase regulations. As I understood him, he seemed to imply that the President of the Board of Trade was satisfied with the present 20 per cent. deposit. I can assure him that the fact that the President of the Board of Trade does not intend to look at this matter again will give no satisfaction to the industry. Therefore I would ask him to urge his right honourable friend to consider this matter again. I believe it
1148
was only a few days ago, on March 14, that the President of the Board of Trade wrote to the industry saying that he recognised a need for stability, but felt that a 20 per cent. deposit was the right figure. That is why I would urge my noble friend to approach his right honourable friend again and stress the fact that 10 per cent. is the right figure for a satisfactory development of the electrical appliance industry. On the other hand, I must say I was pleased to hear my noble friend say, with regard to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, that there had been two extensions and that exporting firms could expect to receive better terms from the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
Finally, before I withdraw my Motion, I would say how delighted I am that my noble friend said that the President of the Board of Trade would be perfectly willing to consider proposals from the industry with regard to the setting up of an organisation similar to the United Kingdom Railway Advisory Service. With those few words, and again thanking very sincerely noble Lords who took part, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at nine minutes before seven o'clock.