Lords Sitting of 6 February 1962

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

GREATER LONDON TRAFFIC SURVEY INTERVIEWS
2.35 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the reason for the series of questions to be put to motorists of a somewhat private nature; whether the answers will be considered to be private for the use of the Ministry only; and whether a Paper will eventually be produced giving a summary of the replies.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I assume that the questions to which the noble Lord refers are those which form part of the Greater London Traffic Survey. This important survey is being sponsored by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and the London County Council to provide a scientific basis for planning London's roads. Because of the difficulty of stopping a
2
sample of vehicles for interview at the roadside in Central London, most of the information will be collected by means of home interviews, which are now under way and will continue for some nine months. 40,000 of the households to be interviewed have been selected from the vehicle registration records as car owners. Interviews will also be held with 10,000 households without cars.
Trained interviewers will visit each household to ask about the journeys made by all forms of transport on the previous day. Among the questions asked will be "Where each journey began and ended, the time it was made, and its purpose". This information is needed to discover the present volume and pattern of traffic in Greater London. Questions will also be asked about the number of cars and other vehicles owned by each household, the place of work of its members, their occupations, and their normal means of travel to work. This information is needed to help us estimate how the pattern of travel will change in the future. We must plan now for the roads which traffic will wish to use in ten or twenty years' time and it is therefore most important to obtain estimates of the future pattern and volume of traffic, as I am sure the noble Earl will realise.
All the information given will be treated in strict confidence and used for statistical purposes only. No names will be revealed, even to my right honourable friend or the London County Council. The information will be transferred to punch cards and tape and analysed by

3
the L.C.C.'s computer. The precise form in which the results will be published has not yet been decided, but I can assure my noble friend that no individual details will be disclosed.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what will occur if one of the people interviewed says he does not want to give the information in question?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, what will occur is precisely nothing. It will merely mean that another piece of information will not be fed into the machine. I should like to make it quite clear that nobody is obliged to answer any of the questions that are put to him; it is entirely voluntary. But I hope that people will take the view that, since the object of the whole survey is to enable them to help themselves by providing information as to what they themselves want, they should in fact be co-operative about it.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that this very large sample is really necessary? Is this being carried out by the Government Social Survey or by a private commercial firm, and could the noble Lord say how much each interview is costing, because I have never known a survey with 40,000 interviewees; it is an unparalleled size of sample, and I cannot see technically why this enormous sample is necessary.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I feel quite satisfied that it is necessary. There are so many factors involved which are likely to affect the future (as I put it earlier) volume and pattern of traffic, that a very wide cross-section is required. The noble Lord must realise that this takes in the whole of the Greater London area out as far as the Green Belt; it is necessary to take it that far. It is being carried out by a firm of consulting engineers having associates in America who are advising on but not supervising the operation. They have considerable experience of similar surveys in America; on the experience gained from those surveys the type of question has been based. Of course, the questions have been modified to suit circumstances
4
in London. I think that this Survey will be a most valuable component in future planning for London.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Lord in his original Answer said that the purpose of the Survey was in order to get data for the planning of the roads in future. Will it also provide data on the necessity of alternative means of transport such as the Victoria Walthamstow Tube?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is a specific question to which I do not think any specific answer can be given. But I would say this: the Survey has been planned in such a way as to obtain a good deal of information which will be of great use to London Transport Executive. It is a question of planning roads not just for private motor cars but for public transport as well.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the answer he gave me, which does satisfy me. I think it is true and what he said is valid, and I add my hope that the public will co-operate.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, there is one thing I did not gather. What is the estimated cost of these 40,000 interviews?
LORD CHESHAM: The estimated cost is £425,000. The Ministry will pay two-thirds and the London County Council the remainder.
LORD TAYLOR: That is £10 an interview. I thought the number of interviews was all right but this is £10 an interview. That is a most extraordinary cost. The Government Social Survey, I think, costs at most 15s. an interview. Is the Minister quite sure that that is right?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the person interviewed receives any part of this substantial sum?
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords, I cannot say that. I can only, I think, represent to my right honourable friend as rather a good idea what the noble Lady has said and add my name to the list of interviewees.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Lords, could I ask the noble Lord haw the figure is arrived at? Is it so much per question and answer?
LORD CHESHAM: No, my Lords.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to return to this, but I think we should press this question why the sum is so enormous. It looks as though a very large profit indeed—a staggering profit—is being made on this survey, particularly in view of the existence of the Government Social Survey, which does precisely this type of job at cost for the Government.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am quite prepared to look into this matter again and to write to the noble Lord if there is anything extra to add. But I do not think that the costs of the survey are simply to be obtained by dividing the number of households, not individuals, into the estimated cost of the whole thing. There are a good many more costs than the actual costs involved in one interviewer going to one household. I do not think the noble Lord should do a simple and misleading sum of arithmetic and think that it necessarily costs £10 to send one person to one house.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, it would be nice to receive the information, and I will put down a Question about it.
LORD REA: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said that information will not be treated as confidential and may be passed to other Government Departments, can he say whether it might be used in case of magistrates' courts proceedings against a motorist, when a record of this nature might be brought up?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord must have misheard me. I said that the information would be confidential and would be used for no other than statistical purposes; names of individuals would not be revealed even to my right honourable friend or the L.C.C.

LONDON MAGISTRATES' COURTS
2.46 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: 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 considered the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Magistrates' Courts in London (Cmnd. 1606) and, if so, what action they propose to take on it.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, the Committee has produced a valuable Report, and I am glad to be able to express the Government's appreciation of the work of the chairman, Judge Aarvold, and the other members. The Report was published as recently as January 23, and I am not able to say more at this stage than that the Committee's recommendations are being carefully studied.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl will ensure that the proposed reorganisation of the London courts will not be held up by the Greater London Plan?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is sharpening his knives ready for a debate on this particular subject, but of course it was envisaged by that Committee that the results of their Report might have to be revised subject to what may be considered right in the Government's plan for the reorganisation of London.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that quite a lot of the details of the Report can be got on with, whether or not the Greater London Plan is eventually adopted?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I do not know whether or not that is possible. If it is possible, no doubt they will be got on with; but obviously it will take a lot of consideration in the light of what may happen to Greater London.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, can the noble Earl also assure us that the implementation of the recommendations will not be help up until new court buldings are provided, as contemplated in the Report?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lady, I think that that is rather outside the scope of this particular Question, but I will write to her.

EQUIPMENT FOR EUROCONTROL
2.48 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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 to what extent the provision of equipment for Eurocontrol is being based on technical and not on political considerations, in view of the necessity for the integration of military and air control in Western Europe as part of the proposed joint air traffic control system.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, under the Convention, the aims of Eurocontrol's services are to provide for the safety of air nagivation and the orderly and rapid flow of air traffic, taking into account military needs. The Permanent Commission and Agency have not yet been set up. The interim Association is engaged on preparatory studies designed to achieve these aims. No question of procuring any equipment has yet arisen.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that quite a number of people who supply equipment are already in the field to try to supply it for the civil aircraft; and is it not desirable that military and civil aircraft should both have the same type of equipment?—which may not be the case if the American manufacturers are enabled to get the orders which they desire.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that all manufacturers of equipment are making their plans with a view to submitting them to Eurocontrol when it is set up. With regard to the equipment used by military air-
8
craft, that is one of the points that will be taken into consideration by Eurocontrol when it comes to consider the matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, are we to have any hope that we are not going to be bamboozled about the quality of this control by artificial scientific apparatus? Many people in this country were most dissatisfied with the judgment which was given in this matter which put the American product before the British product, although we all thought that the British one was the better.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it will be the duty of Eurocontrol to try to find the best equipment, taking into account considerations of safety and navigation, and not considerations of who makes the equipment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, will Parliament be advised as to what recommendations are being made before consent is given?
LORD DENHAM: Our representatives, both on the Commission and on the Committee of the Agency, will have some considerable say in what equipment is to be chosen. On this point it will be a question of weighted voting, and your Lordships will no doubt remember that our weighted voting is the highest—about 25 per cent. here. I do not think it will be possible for Parliament to be advised before the discussions have taken place.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who raised this matter will return to it on the next N.A.T.O. debate.

NOXIOUS MATERIAL IN FOOD
2.52 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 in what circumstances a considerable quantity of carcinogenic material (Rhodamine B, prohibited in 1957) was permitted to be sold to the public

9
in the form of "rock" after it has been established that grave risks were involved; and whether they will issue a directive that foodstuffs containing noxious material should be immediately withdrawn from the market without allowing a period of grace to the traders.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations, 1957, prohibited numerous colours which had been in use in the food trade for many years and were permitted by the previous regulations. Although the addition of the prohibited colours to food is undesirable, and, in the case of some of them, there is evidence which tends to suggest that they have caused cancer in experimental animals when fed to them in very large quantities, it is improbable that, in the quantities in which they are used in food, they represent a serious hazard to health or such a risk as would have justified an immediate ban on colours to which no previous restrictions had applied. Such a ban would have meant the destruction of considerable quantities of food of many kinds. Regulations made banning the use of an additive in food allow a period of grace to give manufacturers time to alter their production methods and to dispose of stocks when the risks to health are small or doubtful. But if any additive was proved to cause a risk to health suffcient to justify the destruction of food, the regulations banning it would certainly be brought into force forthwith.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I must thank the noble Earl for his Answer, but I find it quite illogical. Am I not right in saying that in 1957 it was decided that this carcinogenic element, Rhodamine B, was found in such a quantity that it would be dangerous and inimical to health for people to consume it? I do not think that is disputed. The traders were then told that, despite this grave discovery, they could sell their stocks for two years. I will accept the noble Earl's point that perhaps on some things—let us say, infected pies—it might not cause a lot of trouble, but to allow traders to sell for two years material which it is agreed contains carcinogenic properties is diffi-
10
cult to understand. Is the noble Earl aware—and I regard this as a very serious matter—that not only has this been consumed for two years, the period of grace given by the Government, but a sample was found in November which caused the present case? Therefore this has been consumed for four years. My other short question is this. In 1957, when it was discovered that this material contained carcinogenic properties, were the workers in this industry, or their representatives, informed? Because otherwise they have been manufacturing this material for some four years in complete ignorance of what it contained?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, may I answer the noble Baroness's short question as to whether the workers were informed? The Colouring Matter in Food Regulations, 1957, were published as Statutory Instrument 1066 of 1957. The public was informed when these regulations were published.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I put a further supplementary to that? When an Order of that kind is published, does the noble Lord think that these unskilled men and women, thousands of them, working in these factories where these preparations are made, know anything about them?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords. But the noble Lady's supplementary questions are surely somewhat academic. Five years ago, when these regulations were going through Parliament, would have been the time to question whether a period of two years was to be allowed for stocks to be used up. Parliament, in its wisdom, passed these regulations and the Third Schedule stated the period during which stocks could be used up of the substances which were not thought to cause a serious danger to health. If anybody uses these substances to-day he is in clear breach of the regulations, for the period of grace elapsed in 1959, three years ago.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords in the Schedule it does not say it is carcinogenic.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: In this Schedule it does not say that this colouring matter is carcinogenic. But, as the

11
noble Lady is surely aware, when these regulations were introduced we changed our system. Previously it was a question of banning certain materials. In 1957 we changed the system and had a permitted list instead. The permitted list by inference bans all the others. There were some 400 colouring matters which were no longer allowed. In the First Schedule to the Regulations are the only coal tar colours that were permitted from the dates given in the Third Schedule.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether in cases where there is a danger to workers the factory inspector is informed of the making of the Order?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: He must certainly be aware of it, but these are regulations under the Food and Drugs Act designed to protect the consumer of food. I should need notice of the noble Lord's question as to what steps are taken under the Factory Acts in regard to the preparation of substances which may be dangerous.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the workers who handle the material are surely just as much concerned as those who consume it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: That would be for a different Ministry and different regulations would apply. I think we should try to keep this matter in proportion. The noble Baroness probably knows the experimental work that was done on these substances, about which there was sometimes considerable doubt as to whether they should be prohibited or not. It was possible, by massive doses, to induce a certain amount of skin cancer in rats, but not in mice or in any other animals, so far as I know.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, will the noble Earl be good enough to see that these workers are given sufficient notice of the dangers in which they are working?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: This question of the workers in factories who are manufacturing the substance is quite a different question from that on the Order Paper. Perhaps the noble Lord will be
12
kind enough to give me notice of this point and I can answer it on another occasion.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl how it happens that sweetmeats containing this substance have been illegally sold in various places in this country for years past and then only a week or two ago is any official action taken? Does not this indicate that the existing procedures for the sampling and testing of foodstuffs are incompetent to protect the public from dangers of this kind?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords, I could not accept that at all. Noble Lords may be aware that this very morning a prosecution was successful. I do not have the details of the case. It was clearly in breach of these regulations that this substance should be sold. People will always break the law. Here we have a case in which the law is broken and retribution follows this very morning.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, does not the noble Earl understand that this sweet has been sold not only in Brighton but in many other places, and has been continuously manufactured and sold?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am not aware of that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, on that point, may I say that there was a man outside the shop, with a great cargo of this rock. He said to the inspector: "What a pity to waste this. Can I take it to an orphanage?"
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Does the noble Lady remember what was the answer?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Certainly not "Yes".

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD NEWTON: My Lords I should like to inform the House that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Perth will be making a statement about the West Indies.

PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND BYSSINOSIS BENEFIT AMENDMENT SCHEME, 1962
3.2 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Scheme be approved. Since each of the three schemes that I am to move this afternoon stems from the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1961, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke on the three together. With your Lordships' permission I will do so.
These three Schemes deal with a group of workers disabled as a result of injuries or diseases sustained at work before July 5, 1948, when the Industrial Injuries Scheme came into force. Let me refer first to the old cases. The Schemes are made, as I have said, under the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, which was recently before your Lordships and received the Royal Assent on December 20 last. That Act made substantial improvements in the allowances payable to these old cases from the Industrial Injuries Fund.
My Lords, this first Scheme and the following one are concerned with a special group of old cases. These are the partially disabled as a result of certain industrial diseases who fall between two stools; on the one side, the Workmen's Compensation Act, because when the disease manifested itself, they were time-barred from making a claim; on the other side, the Industrial Injuries Acts, because when they worked in the causative process the Industrial Injuries Acts had not come into being. To deal with these men, a special allowance was introduced under the Industrial Diseases Benefits Acts, 1951 and 1954, under which two distinct schemes were made to administer the allowances.
The Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Amendment Scheme was set up for men suffering from these diseases. Pneumoconiosis is the disease caused in miners by coal dust, and which used to be known as silicosis. Byssinosis is a disease in the textile industry, believed to be caused by vegetable matter in the lungs. The Industrial Diseases (Miscellaneous) Benefit Scheme was set up for others suffering from certain malignant but fortunately rare diseases, principally
14
forms of cancer induced by coal tar. This allowance was increased by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1961, by the sum of 7s. 6d. The main part of these two amending Schemes, which was drafted in like terms, is consequential on the complex of allowances introduced for all these old cases, and is necessary to avoid possible duplication of the new allowances.
The Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Amendment Scheme, which will shortly come before your Lordships, is concerned with certain men entitled to workmen's compensation, and may appear to be a little complicated. The principal Scheme, which the new Scheme amends, lays down the conditions to, and the method of administration of, supplementary allowances made to men injured before 1924. The amending Scheme increases the amount of supplementation by 10s. and introduces a new allowance of up to 10s. for an entirely new group of men. These are men in receipt of workmen's compensation in respect of injuries sustained after January, 1924, and before the operation of industrial injuries schemes, and who are not totally disabled by their injuries. Until now these men have not been entitled to a supplementary allowance.
The changes necessary to do this account for the greater part of the amending Scheme, of which the remaining articles are either consequential to Section 1 of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1961, or are of a tidying-up nature. The penultimate article in each of these three Schemes merely brings them into line with the main insurance schemes, as amended by Section 9, subsection (1), of the recent 1961 Act. These changes are beneficial, and I hope that your Lordships will approve them. I beg to move the first Scheme.
Moved, That the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Amendment Scheme, 1962, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
3.7 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clear exposition of these Orders, and for explaining the difference between pneumoconiosis and byssinosis. To most of us, they are words, but to some industrial

15
workers they are dreaded diseases. We have no quarrel with these Orders, but I had hoped that the noble Lord would deal with the words "due care and diligence", which appear in the Orders, having been substituted in the original 1961 Act, on which these Orders are based, for the words "good faith" which were previously used.
I appreciate and accept the fact that it was not thought desirable, when the Orders had been made about the recipients of pensions, in effect, immediately to accuse them of bad faith. What I should very much like to know is how these words "due care and diligence" are to be applied in practice. As I understand it, these Orders apply to men who contracted these diseases before 1948 or, in certain cases, as far back as 1924. Therefore, they are not only very sick men; they are mostly elderly men who have possibly been bed-ridden, and almost certainly homebound. Any of these men who is partially disabled is, as I understand it, soon to get an extra 7s. 6d. a week under the 1961 Insurance Act. But if they are totally disabled these people will not get this extra 7s. 6d. or they are not entitled to it, because they are already to get 15s. extra under the 1961 Act. That is fair enough—at least I hope so.
But we are now asked to pass three Orders which, in effect, will safeguard the Treasury against the possibility that some careless civil servant will pay this 7s. 6d. to these totally disabled men who are not entitled to and we are asking these bed-ridden, elderly men to exercise "due care and diligence" to see that they do not get it; otherwise, they will have to pay it back after they have spent it. I think that is a fair representation of what is in these Orders. That does not seem at all right to us. What do these old chaps know about Statutory Rules and Orders? They read in the paper that they are going to get an extra 15s. a week. But if, instead of 15s., they received 22s. 6d., they would probably regard it as a proper acknowledgement of the increase in the cost of living, and it means that their hard and poverty-ridden lives are made perhaps just a trifle easier.
I should like to ask the noble Lord to tell me whether my interpretation
16
of these Orders is fair and correct; and, if so, precisely what "due care and diligence" is required from these men to see that they are not overpaid. I should also be glad if, in the course of his exposition, he would give us precise examples of the kind of cases where repayment would be demanded.
3.10 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend has drawn attention to this point. It seems to me that the new Regulations lay down a very much severer standard for these people than do the old ones. After all, they include not only the actual allowance itself, but also death benefits, so that presumably a widow, or somebody like that, may have the burden of proof put upon her. Surely, it is not unreasonable that a man or woman of this kind, receiving this money, should be entitled to assume that the calculations have been accurately made by the responsible officer who has had the handling of the problem at an earlier stage. It was, I suggest, with that point in mind that the test was originally made a test of good faith, which it is obviously very much easier for the workman or the widow to satisfy.
I would remind Members of the House that, in the case of an inaccurate statement in a bank passbook or a bank statement, the customer of the bank is entitled to rely on the bank having done the calculations accurately. If he then proceeds to draw on the amount of the balance which is shown in his statement and to spend the money, in order to recover it from him the bank must satisfy the judge that the man acted in bad faith in spending the money. There, my Lords, you have a man who is a business man, and who has that advantage. Why, with this perhaps old and comparatively illiterate man, should the very much higher standard which is laid down in these Regulations be insisted upon? I suggest that my noble friend Lord Stonham is absolutely right when he indicates that there is a much higher and severer standard imposed by this Regulation than by the earlier one, which required only good faith, and, in effect, in asking for an assurance that it will not be rigidly enforced against these unfortunate men or their widows.
3.12 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, when this order was before the Special Orders Committee I, too, raised a question on this proviso; but it seems to me that, hidden in the proviso, there are one or two very important matters which may become matters of principle and appear in later Orders and cause a considerable amount of difficulty to the courts. In the first place, the position is that the amount of compensation to which a man is entitled is not a very simple matter of calculation. In the days when I used to practise in the county courts in workmen's compensation cases (I agree it is a very long time ago), there was very little difficulty in assessing the amount of compensation that a man should receive: it was half his weekly wages. Nowadays, it is necessary to take into account the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act, 1951, as extended by the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Act, 1954, and as amended by Section 4 of the National Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1957, and by Section 1, subsection (3), of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1961.
I should therefore venture to say that no workman—for instance, the man who sweeps the floor in the factory, who is liable to get infected with this dust—has the least idea how much he is entitled to until he is told by an official. When he is told by an official, he naturally will assume that the official is right. If the official has unfortunately misunderstood one or two of these Orders in here, he is in exactly the same position as the bankers were in the case to which my noble and learned friend Lord Chorley has referred—a case called Holt v. Markham, where a bank paid an officer more than he was entitled to, and a gratuity. The court there held that the bankers were not entitled to recover it, first, because they misconstrued the Orders—and it is a well-known principle of English law that money paid under a mistake of law is not recoverable; and, secondly, as Lord Justice Scrutton very emphatically pointed out in his judgment, because if the bankers paid money to the man, or credited it to his bank account, they induced him to believe that he was entitled to the money, and if he spent the money he thereby altered his position, and so the bank was estopped from obtaining the money.
18
Now here, my Lords, bad faith is not in question, because bad faith has been taken out of the Act. However, it is said that workmen will have to repay except in cases
"… where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Administrative Board that in the obtaining and receipt of those sums the person concerned and any person acting for him has throughout used due care and diligence to avoid overpayment".
Of course, when a man goes to receive his money he will assume that the person who pays him knows what he is doing, and if he gets a little more than he got last time, I think it is too much to suppose that he will say, "Here, look what you have paid me. Are you quite sure it is right?" He will think it is a blessing from Heaven, and he will pocket it and go off—and why not?
Where I think the danger is here, among other things, is that it is altering the well-known principle of the onus of proof. If the Administrative Board want to say that this man has been overpaid and has not shown due diligence, then let them prove it. Under this Order, he has to show that he has used due diligence. That seems to me to be turning upside down the well-known doctrines with regard to the onus of proof in English law. Let the person who affirms—that is to say, the Administrative Board—prove. The person who has received the money is entitled to hold it until it is shown that he has not used "due care and diligence." I protest that it is a dangerous thing to allow these Orders to alter the whole principle of the burden of proof as understood by the Common Law of England, and to put the burden of proof on the individual. I think this matter is one which ought definitely to be seriously considered by this House.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has, I am sure, impressed the whole House that this is a matter which ought to be looked at again. It is a serious matter. In the normal case, where a person is overpaid owing to a mistaken view of the law, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, there is no right of recovery. This Order expressly creates a right of recovery, and does so by administrative means: by merely knocking the amount of the overpayment

19
off the future sum to be paid to the person entitled to be paid. He has no voice in the matter at all. What the person will find is that he has been getting a certain sum of money for a period, then the mistake will be discovered, and in the future he will have the money knocked off his payments until such time as the amount has been recovered. I am sure that that is not seriously the intention, and I think the whole House will feel uneasy at approving this Scheme without the matter being further considered. I suggest to the noble Lord that it would be wiser if he took this Order back and asked his right honourable friend to look at it again in the light of what has been said by my noble friends and by the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken.
3.19 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords and to my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard for raising this point; but I should be grateful if your Lordships would just listen for a moment to the circumstances; because I think that, if your Lordships appreciate the reason for, and the effect of, the change of words, you will see that the workman is not damnified in any way.
As your Lordships are aware, the old form of words were
"acted in good faith in all respects as to obtaining and receipt of the money".
Then as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out, in Section 9 (1) of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1961, the new wording came in—namely,
"throughout used due care and diligence to avoid over-payment".
My Lords, it is important to realise that these new words were brought in, as I said, before the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act was passed. A person who had been overpaid benefit or family allowance was required to repay it unless he satisfied the determining authorities that he had "acted in good faith in all respects as to the obtaining and receipt of the money". The onus was upon him to show that he had acted in good faith in all respects as to the obtaining and receipt of the money. The fact is—and I think all your Lordships,
20
if you were considering the position of the claimant, would agree—that in consideration of this, the wording of the criterion which I have just read, that he "acted in good faith in all respects", caused offence to claimants, because a claimant considered that it carried an imputation of dishonesty if there were any case for repayment. That is something which I have urged your Lordships is a matter that ought to be considered.
These words are interpreted under the Insurance Scheme, as your Lordships know, by the National Insurance Commissioner, who is the final determining authority. He has to construe these words according to the actual functioning of the Act, and he construed the old words in this way. He held that "acted in good faith in all respects" did not merely mean "acted without fraud or deliberate deceit", but that it also meant "acted honestly and frankly at every stage, with the positive idea of not leaving the determining authority ignorant on any point which that authority might regard as material". That was the construction of the old words under which this Scheme was carried on; and I remind your Lordships that the Commissioner is the final authority and his construction is the mandatory construction which is applied. So that, under his construction, a claimant who had no intent to defraud but who was careless or forgetful might be required to repay any overpaid benefit, and he might understandably resent a finding that he had not "acted in good faith". That was the problem, to express the same legal position in words which would not offend a claimant, and I think your Lordships would agree that that is a reasonable approach to the matter.
That is the aim of the alteration in the wording of the provision made by the 1961 Act, which was to avoid giving offence or causing distress in any way, A person who has been overpaid benefit or family allowance is now required to repay it unless he has "throughout used due care and diligence to avoid over-payment". That formula has been devised to reproduce the substance of the previous law without giving rise to the implication that a person who is required to repay must necessarily have

21
acted in bad faith. My right honourable friend and those who advise him have considered this matter carefully and they are of opinion that no material alteration in the field of cases affected is anticipated. The new words will really carry out what the Commissioner has construed the old words to mean.
While the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will appreciate that I do not want to give a ruling in a concrete case, because it is for the Commissioner, and not for me, to decide how in cases it should apply, I should like to be as helpful as I can on the question as to how it will be applied; and if the noble Lord will take it with that reservation, that this is how I would apply it if I were Commissioner, then this is how it would be applied to my knowledge. It means, as I said, that if the claimant had acted honestly and frankly at every stage, and with the idea of not leaving the authority ignorant on any point which appeared material to the claim which might reasonably be put before him, then he would be within the words. If he had deliberately refrained from inquiry—and I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the force of the word "deliberately"; it is not just a matter of fringe forgetfulness, but that he deliberately failed to make inquiry when any reasonable person in his position would have done so—or if he were to disregard regulations which are put to him, then I think he might be in difficulty. But so long as he has acted honestly and frankly, and with the intention of not leaving the determining authority ignorant on any point, then I do not think that he has anything to fear.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount allow me to interrupt him for a moment? Before he leaves this point, could he at least give an example of the kind of material fact whose suppression would be regarded as not exercising "due care and diligence"? Is he referring to a man who is getting a dependant's allowance, but no longer had a dependant and had not disclosed the fact? Is that the kind of material fact he means?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, that is the sort of point. I was going on to say that the determining authority
22
will be able—and I think this is one of the points which noble Lords had in mind in former cases—to take into account all the personal circumstances of the individual claimant, such as illiteracy, illness, deafness, and so on. I give as a full undertaking that they will be, as I am told they always have been, taken into account. But the main point—and this is the reason why I have dealt with the matter at length—is that I wanted your Lordships to know exactly how the old words were construed and worked. I have considered this more than once, and I do not see any change in the new words. It might be that my noble and learned friend or I myself would not have given the same construction to the old words. I think my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard would agree that the construction given was, we would say, uberrimae fidei. That is the construction which the Commissioner has attached to the wording, and in view of that, the new words do not make a change as against the claimant; but they do get rid of this much resented suggestion that anyone who had to make a repayment had acted in bad faith, and I think we ought to do that for the sake of the claimant.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, my main point here is not the actual words used, whether "good faith" or not, but the question of the onus of proof. I say that the onus of proof in this Order is contrary to what I have always understood to be the Law of England. It is put upon the defendant instead of on the plaintiff.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps my noble and learned friend did not hear my answer; I said that the onus of proof was exactly the same under the old regulations.
LORD GODDARD: Then the sooner it is altered the better.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is a different matter. The Regulations were passed by your Lordships with no complaint from anyone, and under these Regulations the onus of proof is in exactly the same place.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I think that I can support my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, because a case of this kind actually

23
happened to me over sickness benefit. When I was seriously ill last year, I drew sickness benefit, and through a mistake of my doctor I drew 14s. 9d. over the amount which I should have drawn. I received a letter from the Ministry saying that the inference was that I had acted in bad faith in drawing the 14s. 9d. but that, if I wanted to keep my 14s. 9d., I had to prove to the inspector that I had not acted in bad faith. Therefore, I can back up my noble and learned friend in saying that the old words, which I feel were offensive, had exactly the same effect as the new words, which perhaps are rather less unpleasant to the recipient.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I should like to say a few words. Of course, I should have been here when the matter was debated, but I was unavoidably prevented from coming here in time. I wish to support my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard 100 per cent. In fact, I go very much farther than my noble and learned friend. The recipient should not come into the picture at all. If he ever behaves in a fraudulent manner, then, of course, different considerations arise altogether. For example, if the recipient goes on receiving money in respect of a dependant when that dependant is dead, that is about as clear a case of fraud as I ever heard of; and in such a case the ordinary law will deal with the matter. But in this case, apart from any question of fraud, the recipient should not be in the picture. If I go to a bank to cash a cheque, and the unfortunate cashier pays me too much, and subsequently the mistake is discovered, what has happened puts me morally under an obligation to repay that money. Legally, however, the damage falls upon the unfortunate cashier who is the payer-out of the money. He has to account to his bank for the overpayment he has made. A similar situation arises here. I think that these words, whether they are an improvement on the old or not, should be left out altogether, and there should be no burden of proof upon the recipient at all. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard has raised a most important point, and I hope that we shall go to a Division.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for what he has said, because it explains how this matter has arisen. I can understand the difficulty, but may I put two questions to him?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not wish to curtail the discussion on this matter, but we do have Standing Orders in your Lordships' House, which provide that a noble Lord can speak only once on matters of this character. If the noble Lord has a question to put, would he put it briefly?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may the noble Lord speak if he has permission of the House? Can we grant him permission?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, my two questions are these. The noble and learned Viscount said that if he had had to give the decision given by the Commissioner he might have given a different decision. But surely the Commissioner is giving the meaning which Parliament has used. Would not the noble and learned Viscount agree with me, therefore, that Parliament might alter the words in order that the Commissioner might give a decision more in accordance with the feeling of Parliament? That is the first question. My second question is: would it be possible for us to amend this particular Regulation in order that the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, is carried out and the burden is put upon the Administration to show that a man acted in bad faith in taking money instead of placing the burden upon a minor or his widow?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first point, of course Parliament can alter the words. But Parliament has just altered the words in this direction, in an Act which was passed only last year—Section 9 of the Act of 1961. So Parliament has chosen the words that we have put in these Regulations. Your Lordships passed them and found no fault with them. Therefore the position of Parliament is quite clear.
On the second point, I thought that my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard was suggesting that we had

25
altered the onus of proof and put it on the claimant. We had not, and when I challenged my noble and learned friend on that, and said that that was the position under the old Regulations, he agreed with me, but suggested that it should not have been so under the old Regulations. The onus of proof goes right back to the Labour Party's introduction of these Regulations and this method of administration and it has always seemed right to do it in this way.
The only reason why this trouble has arisen is that we have tried to meet the claimants' resentment. My noble friend Lord Grenfell has voiced this resentment at the suggestion, if there is any question of repayment, that claimants are acting dishonestly. They have to prove their own honesty and therefore there is this suggestion of dishonesty against them. I ask your Lordships not to resent or divide against something which is intended to meet what I think, like my noble friend Lord Grenfell, is a legitimate grievance of claimants, and not to alter the law in any way from what it has been in the past, since this method of procedure has come into operation. We have considered this point. I have told your Lordships exactly why it is done, and I ask your Lordships to support the amendment of the Regulation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (MISCELLANEOUS) BENEFIT AMEND MENT SCHEME, 1962
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Scheme be approved.
Moved, That the Industrial Diseases (Miscellaneous) Benefit Amendment Scheme, 1962, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) AMENDMENT SCHEME, 1962
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Scheme be approved.
Moved, That the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Amendment Scheme, 1962, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE FEDERATION OF THE WEST INDIES
3.39 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I think that now might be a convenient moment for me to make the statement about my right honourable friend's visit to the West Indies. Perhaps it will be easiest if I use the exact words that my right honourable friend is using in another place. It is as follows:
"As the House is aware, I paid a visit to the West Indies from the 13th to the 28th of January. My object was to discuss with the leaders of the Governments in the Eastern Caribbean the situation arising from Jamaica's desire to leave the Federation. During my visit I had talks with the Federal Government and with the Premiers of Barbados and Trinidad, as well as with Chief Ministers of all the Leeward and Windward Islands which form part of the Federation of the West Indies.
"My talks revealed that we face this situation: Jamaica has declared its determination to withdraw from the Federation and this decision has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago has decided not to participate in any federation of the Eastern Caribbean. Finally, the Premier of Barbados and the Chief Ministers of the Leeward and Windward Islands, while advocating a new federation between their territories, are agreed that the present one should be dissolved.
"In these circumstances Her Majesty's Government have with regret reached the conclusion that they have no alternative but to arrange for the dissolution of the present Federation.
"Under the Federation, however, a number of common services of great value have been operating in the area. We are anxious to ensure their continuation on a regional basis pending clarification of the constitutional position throughout the area. Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided to introduce legislation into

27
Parliament very shortly which will enble us to dissolve the present Federation, and to set up an interim organisation under a Commissioner appointed by Her Majesty's Government, which will be responsible for running the common services for the time being, until some more permanent arrangements for their operation can be worked out in conjunction with the Governments of the West Indies.
"Her Majesty's Government regard the suggested federation of Barbados and the Leeward and Windward Islands as a promising development. They consider, however, that a great deal of careful study, both here and in the West Indies, will be needed before any final decisions can be taken, and they propose for their part to initiate this study in the very near future."
3.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Earl for giving us this statement. I think the whole House will agree with the Government in expressing regret that they have had to reach the conclusion they have and that there is no alternative but to arrange for the dissolution of the present Federation. We can understand, from what has been said earlier, the difficulties which have faced the Government in dealing with this matter; but somehow or other I feel in my heart that I should like efforts to continue in the future to try to get a satisfactory federation, if that were possible, and to persuade certain personalities to agree with each other in the matter.
However, the procedure which is laid down now in the statement is naturally that the Government will be introducing legislation, and perhaps we may have a further discussion on the matter in general when that comes up. I agree that we shall have to look at the question of how to run the rest of the common services for those who are not in the Trinidad or the Jamaican set-up. I think the suggested Federation of Barbados and the Leeward and Windward Islands is a matter which can be pursued as a promising development;
28
but I hope that the Government will pursue it with care, as well as with urgency, and that we may come to the help of these places as much as lies within our power.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I should like to add one word, having always been a keen supporter of this Federation. I am sure we all share the regret of Her Majesty's Government that it has broken down. Geographically it had great difficulties; but constitutionally it looked as if it might be one of the most hopeful of all the new developments, because the West Indies had a long tradition of all that is best in British Parliamentary and constitutional life. Therefore, it is a great misfortune that this suggested Federation has broken down. But I agree that the Government must accept the decision, taken first of all in Jamaica and, following upon that, in Trinidad.
I would only say this: I am delighted to hear that they are going to continue the common services. I think that is extremely important. It is important not only because they are in themselves of great value to every one of these Island dependencies, but also because of the fact that they work well together. The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said that he hoped this might not be the final word. It is, of course, for the moment. But, after all, people separate and people come together again; and the more they work in co-operation over common services perhaps the better the chance will be that they may draw together once more in closer union.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as I, too, was one of those involved in the original plan for the Federation of the West Indies, I should like to supplement what has already been said about how much we regret the decision to dissolve the Federation. At the same time, we on this side of the House have always said—and it is, I think, a view shared by most people—that no Federation can continue without the willing support of its component units; and that is a view we have held in relation to other Federations besides the West Indies.
I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions in relation to common services. I am as delighted as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and as I am sure other noble Lords who have

29
been to the West Indies will be, that the common services will continue to operate. I should like to know whether the Colonial Development and Welfare Funds will be available for the cost of these common services or whether funds from them provided by Her Majesty's Government will continue to be available; and also whether personnel from here, as well as from the West Indies, will be available for the technical posts which often cannot be locally filled. Finally, I would ask whether the Commissioner whom the Government propose to appoint will be a political figure or a civil servant.
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I must say that I am not surprised at the general regret that has been expressed on the ending of this experiment. It was a very difficult one, with many thousands of miles between some of the Islands. But there it is. As noble Lords have said, we must accept at the moment that what various of the Islands have said is the wish of their people. But I feel very much with the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that while they are concentrating on what remains—namely, the common services—that may not be the end of the story. It would be wrong to give your Lordships any hope that we see something building up from the common services to-day: indeed, one might do a disservice to the whole concept of what can be done in the future if one did build too much on them. But it is important that they should go on.
I am not sure that I shall be able to answer in detail the questions put by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, because they involve things that we are going to discuss with the Islands as soon as we can. But I have no doubt that it, for example, there is need of people from over here to help them run their technical services, and so on, we shall see what we can do in that respect. That is not a commitment; it is just a general expression of our policy in those things. I hope the noble Earl will accept that I cannot say more in reply to the other questions that he asked.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while agreeing with everything that has been said, and regretting that it has become
30
necessary to dissolve this Federation, I take it that there will be a hiatus, as it were, between the time when one Federation is dissolved and another one is created, if it is created. How does the noble Earl propose that the various services which are now federal services shall be continued during that period?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the thought is that the interim organisation will carry on with the common services as a matter of practical administration while issues of the constitutional arrangements may be debated quite outside and run at their own pace and in their own way. As your Lordships know, we have at this moment a constitutional conference going on about Jamaica. That conference will come to certain conclusions. We may face a similar conference in regard to Trinidad and Tobago. As I said in the statement, it may be that the other concept of the Federation of the remaining eight islands may take more concrete shape. It depends very much on what everybody decides after further study. But while all that is proceeding, it seems to me that there need be no hiatus; we certainly have no thought in mind that there need he any hiatus in the practical administration of the common services under an interim organisation. Obviously that is the wish of all the islands.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, as I understand it, the original object of Federation was to bring together a sufficient number of people to create a viable economic unit, with a view to eventual independence which was to have been granted very shortly. Now that this whole idea has fallen to the ground, it is certainly commonly held in the West Indies that Jamaica will still receive independence shortly, and Trinidad also in a very short time. I do not know whether the noble Earl has any statement or comment to make on that feeling and, if in fact it is true, on what has occurred to make Her Majesty's Government feel that a unit of a little over one million inhabitants, such as Jamaica, and one of a little under one million, such as Trinidad, are now large enough to be economically independent, whereas a few years ago the idea was that they could achieve independence only if there were something over two million inhabitants.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, as to what has changed our judgment of whether there can be independence with, let us say, a little over one million for Jamaica, or a little under one million for Trinidad, whereas at one time we thought in terms of bigger figures, is that that is just how things have developed. We have seen other examples—the case of Cyprus. Whether it will be so in the case of what is projected possibly for Zanzibar, or perhaps for other territories in the not too distant future, I do not know. There is a further point—namely, that in both Jamaica and Trinidad there has been considerable economic development in the last years which has made them more viable as units on their own. This is not to say that to see them fragmented in this way as opposed to the original concept of a larger grouping is a good thing, because clearly a larger unit had its advantages not only because of its general standing in the world but because of the diversification it offered in relation to its economies.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. As there are Amendments to be discussed, I suggest that it may be convenient to take the motion for Third Reading formally, and that when the Amendments have been dealt with we can have a general discussion on the motion, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 4 [Permitted hours in licensed premises, registered clubs and licensed canteens]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS had given Notice of two Amendment to subsection (1), the first being to leave out "six" and insert "half-past six". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it
32
may be remembered that on the Report stage of this Bill a certain amount of confusion arose about the length of time which your Lordships would like to allow the Scots to have for drinking on Sunday evenings. For reasons which seemed very good, not only to me but to most of the rest of your Lordships also, my noble friend the Duke of Atholl put the ending of this drinking time on Sundays at 10 o'clock. As the Bill left your Lordships after Report, this meant that on Sundays people in Scotland would have six hours in which to drink, whereas in England the time was only five and a half hours. I do not know whether my noble friend considered this as one of the advantages of his Amendment or not, but I feel that there ought to be the same length of drinking time on Sundays North of the Border as there is South. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will agree that half-past six should take the place of 6 o'clock as opening time on Sunday evenings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("six") and insert ("half past six").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for correcting the result of procedural confusion at the Report stage in a way that is acceptable to the Government, and I ask noble Lords to support this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this Amendment merely carries on the good work started by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl and makes the closing time in restaurants and licensed hotels 10 o'clock, in the same way as restaurants, public houses and ships will now be affected by this Bill. I bee to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("half-past nine") and insert ("ten").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Restaurants in public houses may have permitted hours on Sundays in certain cases]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out ("six") and insert ("half-past six").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Amendment of law relating to provisional grant of certificates]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 45, leave out ("the foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) of this section").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Sale of exciseable liquor on passenger vessels on Sundays]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 8, leave out ("six") and insert ("half-past six ").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Restriction on carriage of exciseable liquor in crates, etc., on contract carriages]:
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN had given notice of his intention to move to leave out Clause 20. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the last stage of the Bill I expressed my disagreement with the clause which is now represented as Clause 20. I therefore put down this Amendment in order to have a chance of saying what I thought. Since that time I have had discussions on the matter with St. Andrew's House, for which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and also discussions outside. Although I do not think anybody in your Lordships' House really likes this clause—it is not the kind of clause we like—I have come to the conclusion that the Government are perfectly right to put it in. Therefore, I beg leave of your Lordships not to move my Amendment. If any of your Lordships insist, I am afraid I shall have to move it, but I shall be in the Division Lobby against them.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Clause 20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 9, after ("liquor") insert ("to restrict the carriage of exciseable liquor on public service vehicles used as contract carriages").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, that concludes the Amendments, and I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. This important Bill has understandably been a source of anxiety both to myself and to my right honourable friend, and I am indeed grateful to your Lordships for the close and constructive scrutiny you have given it. On so many subjects we have had to arrive at the best possible solution through a tangle of strongly held and conflicting views. There had to be, and there has been, considerable give and take, not only on the part of your Lordships but also on the part of the Government and of my noble and learned friend Lord Guest. The whole operation, if I may be so bold as to say so, is a joint endeavour in the best traditions of your Lordships' House.
Very considerable improvements both in substance and in drafting have been made, improvements which have underlined, in relation to drink, what was said so many times, that Scotland is Scotland, England is England, and, indeed, that Wales is Wales. Gone is that peculiarly Scottish and slightly disreputable figure the "bona-fide traveller". Both the "carrot" of Sunday permitted hours and the "stick" of Clause 20 have been applied to the Scottish problem of "boozing bus parties"; order has been brought out of the permitted hours chaos; commonsense has at last prevailed in the matter of off-sales; Sunday opening for public houses has been faced up to and a decision has been reached; and the two new types of certificate will give Scottish residents and tourists the best type of improved service. On all the major problems decisions have been taken that will, I am sure, stand, and which seem to have met with the approval of the majority of Scotsmen. We all know there are still some areas of controversy of which, no doubt, more will be heard in another place; but all I should like to say to your Lordships is, once again, thank you.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Craigton.)
4.2 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in many cases the charge which is levied in Scotland against the Scottish Office is not so much the things that they do but the things that they ought to do and refrain from doing, and on this Bill I think that is the charge that I would make. As I have said already and have no intention of repeating at length, the two main recommendations of the Committee were not in fact implemented in the Bill. Thanks to the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, there is in the Bill a form of words which purports to do something about one of these problems, the Sunday "booze buses". I doubt very much that what is in the Bill is satisfactory, but it will at least give an opportunity in another place to look at the matter afresh and also give Members there some encouragement to put their thinking caps on in this matter. If they apply the same pressure on Ministers in another place as was applied here, we may yet accomplish something in that direction which will be satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said that the matter of Sunday opening of pubs had been faced and a decision reached. That is a form of words which I should not have chosen to describe what took place, but at least it is not untrue.
I think that I should be justified on this measure in saying that I see it go on its way to another place in the hope that it may yet return to us with some improvements carried out there which we may then be in a position to accept here. As was said in the case of another Bill a short time ago, I say "Farewell" to this Bill, not necessarily "Goodbye".
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I hope that when this Bill passes its final stages Her Majesty's Government will look on it merely as the ending of phase one and now urgently begin with phase two, which should be the looking into the desirability of abolishing State management districts.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to make two short points. The first is to deliver an apology from my
36
noble friend Lord Ferrier, who was most anxious to be here to-day but unfortunately has been detained in Scotland. He would, however, I know, have applauded Lord Saltoun's decision not to oppose Clause 20 in this Bill, and in particular, I think your Lordships will be interested to know, because he has now had an opportunity to talk to some of the bus crews who have been subjected to this unpleasant habit of the Scottish week-end and they have been extremely glad to support the efforts that have so successfully been made to put this clause, even if it be only to some degree effective, into this Bill.
The other thing I should like to tell your Lordships is that I have heard at least from one of the proprietors of one of the reputable clubs to which I referred in connection with Clause 16 that they are not inclined to be unhappy with the compromise which has taken place over that clause. Therefore I wish this Bill well and I would support it in its passage to another place.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, before saying "Good-bye" or "Fare-well" to this Bill, as one of the people who have taken some interest in it I should like to thank my noble friend for all that he has done to meet us, so far as he has been able, and for drafting quite a few of my Amendments, which appeared in far better form than they would have done if I had drafted them myself. I should also like to support 100 per cent. every word that my noble friend Lord Forbes has said, and I hope the day will not be too far off when State management areas in Scotland, at any rate, are no more. After all, it was 31 years ago when the Committee recommended that they should be abolished, and, even by Government standards, I should have thought 31 years was quite a long time.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for what they have said; and I should like to assure my noble friend who has just sat down that we shall take note of his suggestion and of what the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, has said.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS, ETC.) (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Bill directly concerns the Scottish local authorities, and all but two minor clauses directly affect local authority finance. The view of the Scottish local authorities on the Bill is that they agree all the provisions except Clause 4. The Bill is brought before your Lordships rather more quickly than usual because of Clause 1, which must be in operation by March 15 this year. This clause requires a few words of explanation.
As your Lordships know, rateable valuation, or standard rateable value where higher, is the basis of the distribution both of moneys paid by the central Government to local authorities by way of Exchequer equalisation grant and general grant, and of moneys paid by one local authority to another where services are provided in more than one local authority area. In the normal way the valuation for the preceding year is used for the apportionment of general grant and local expenditure.
Because of revaluation the Act of 1956 provided that for the current year, 1961–62, we should not use the previous year's rateable values, but that instead we should use estimates of the rateable values for this year which the assessors were required to estimate in April, 1961. But these estimates are imperfect and there have since been many valuation appeals. So Clause 1 provides that more up-to-date estimates of rateable valuation, made as at March 15, 1962, should be made and used as the basis for the apportionment of grant and expenditure. Even these estimates will not be final, because the last day for hearing local valuation appeals is not March 15 but May 15; but the local authorities agree with us that Clause 1 will be a great improvement on the existing arrangements.
Clause 1 requires the new estimates of rateable valuation and standard rateable value to be prepared; and authorises their use in the re-calculation of county requisitions and joint board apportion-
38
ments, and their use in the general grant calculation. Effect will be given to the adjustments in the various payments for 1962–63. The general grant calculation also includes a weighting for population, school children, and so on, and subsection (3) of Clause 1 permits the relevant figures of the recent Census to be used in the re-calculation, instead of the figures for the previous year.
Clause 2 deals with the British Transport Commission and the two Electricity Boards, who make payments, in lieu of rates, based on standard amounts. The payments are varied each year as average rate poundages and services supplied fluctuate. Under re-valuation, rate poundages have decreased because rateable values have increased; so the standard amounts must be recalculated so that the payments may remain broadly as before. Clause 2 makes the necessary adjustments. Clause 3 makes some small revisions in the calculation of the rates paid by the Scottish Gas Board, in order to secure a more equitable reckoning of gas purchased from other producers. Similar arrangements were made for England and Wales in the Local Government Act, 1958, and their application to Scotland has been agreed with the Gas Board.
Now, my Lords, we come to Clause 4, with which the local authorities do not agree. The history of this clause is quite straightforward. The Pritchard Committee was set up for England and Wales to recommend more permanent legislation to deal with the rating of charities following the withdrawal on revaluation by the Inland Revenue of the "sympathetic valuation" which had formerly been customary in many areas. As a result, the English Act of 1961 gave charities as defined in the Act a mandatory 50 per cent. rating relief and provided for a further discretionary relief for property occupied for charitable, educational or recreational purposes.
The recent revaluation in Scotland revealed that many Scottish charities had also been sympathetically assessed in the past. But the 1956 Act no longer allowed sympathetic assessments, and as a result the valuation of Scottish charities has in some cases risen very steeply indeed. Many charities extend both to England and Scotland, and so it was

39
understandable that my right honourable friend was under strong pressure that Scottish local authorities should give a mandatory 50 per cent. relief to charities as in England and Wales. The local authorities opposed the principle of this, and particularly objected to relief being granted to fee-paying and independent schools and similar borderline institutions. The Government feel, and we think your Lordships will agree, that Scotland cannot be less generous in the rating of charities than are England and Wales and that the method chosen for deciding what is or is not a charity could hardly be better. This is set out in subsection (10) (a) of Clause 4. If the charitable institution can convince the income tax authorities that they should not pay income tax, then they are entitled to a 50 per cent. rebate in their rates.
I turn now to the provisions of Clause 4. Subsection (1) means lower rates in the year 1962–63. The charities understand that they will have to pay the higher rates for 1961–62, but in England the lower rates take effect only from 1963–64. Subsection (2) provides the 50 per cent. mandatory relief, and subsections (3) and (4) exclude from that relief the Scottish universities. This follows the English Bill. The universities are a clearly definable class and are almost wholly financed by the Exchequer. The Secretary of State may include in the Schedule any institution which he considers ought to be classified with the universities for this purpose.
The next four subsections re-write Section 23 of the 1956 Act, which gives power to the local authority to grant relief, at their discretion, to charities, to non-profit-making philanthropic bodies in the widest sense, and to bodies providing recreation on a non-profit basis. These subsections make provision for the periods during which relief may be given, with a year's notice of alteration or cancellation where the period is undefined; and they ensure that the manse gets rating relief. Subsection (9) excludes from the whole clause places exclusively used for public religious worship and religious halls which are now totally exempt from rates under existing legislation, and also excludes from the clause
40
local authority property, on which full rates must be paid.
Clause 5 is a machinery clause to supplement Clause 4. Subsections (1) and (2) refer to a few charitable organisations which are now exempt entirely from rates, but which will come under the definition of Clause 4 and therefore pay half rates. A build-up towards the payment of half rates over a period of five years is allowed. The next four clauses deal with minor matters of a different character. Clause 6 helps development schemes. Where a local authority are undertaking public works they may, until the work is revenue-producing, hold up repayments of capital, and they may borrow to pay interest.
Clause 7 meets a need that has been found in practice for a valuation appeal committee to have a deputy secretary who has the powers of the secretary and can act on his behalf. Clause 8 refers to demand notes for rates which must show the basis of levying the ordinary rate and the domestic water rate. The basis of levying water rate was altered, with effect from 1961, under the 1956 Act, and this provision in Clause 8, which should have been in the 1956 Act, makes a consequential change in the information to be given on demand notes. The reason for Clause 9 is that the Scottish Valuation Advisory Committee has pointed out that unless clerical errors can be corrected the valuation roll would stay wrong for five years; but the rate-payer concerned must be advised and has the right of appeal. The remaining clauses are common form, and there is nothing to add about the Schedules, which are self-explanatory.
My Lords, this is a limited Bill dealing with urgent matters. Next year we shall need a more weighty measure dealing with important questions in this field and especially with the whole basis of the distribution of Exchequer equalisation grant; in particular, we shall consider the impact of the charities provision on the formula. The discussion of these matters will be helped by the revised valuation estimates to be provided under Clause 1 of this Bill. The present formula for Exchequer equalisation grant expires in May, 1963, and we shall introduce fresh legislation next Session in time to reach the Statute Book by

41
that date. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Craigton.)
4.17 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for the brief yet perfectly clear way in which he has explained the Bill and its purposes to your Lordships. I should also like to congratulate him on adding to his vocabulary of phrases describing these Bills: for quite some time it was small and useful"; to-day we have had "limited and urgent". It would be difficult to disagree with the first of those, and in so far as Clause 1 is concerned the factor of urgency cannot possibly be denied. I feel that the Government are to be congratulated on the cunning with which they have tacked on to Clause 1, which the local authorities are exceedingly anxious to get, Clause 4, something which the local authorities do not want at all, and so have placed them in the position of having to accept Clause 4 if they are going to get the benefit of Clause 1.
I do not regard it as my purpose necessarily here to put forward things which the Scottish local authorities want. On the other hand, I feel that I am under an obligation to make some investigation into the reasons why they object to Clause 4—whether it is nothing other than a justifiable desire to hang on to what they have, or whether there is good reason for parting with it. It may be that I shall put down an Amendment at the Committee stage, though of that I am not at all sure; because I think that generally it is a reasonable position that charities, whether in Scotland or England, should be treated in roughly the same sort of way.
I doubt very much whether many people in Scotland will disagree with the 50 per cent. measure of relief as determined in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has indicated, I should think that the lines of disagreement will not be on the extent of the relief but rather, in a few borderline cases, over the bodies which might get it. The noble Lord has mentioned, for example, the fee-paying schools.
The City of Edinburgh, I understand, has objected particularly strenuously to this clause, probably because of the fact
42
that they have a much greater share of the offices of the Scottish authorities and perhaps, proportionately, will be affected more than any other Scottish local authority. By the same token, I think they also object to the measure of relief being given to fee-paying schools. I am not at all certain that Edinburgh is on such strong ground in the latter case, because if they are being hit in the extent to which they have to give relief, they have to accept it that for many a long day the rate which has had to be levied in Edinburgh for education purposes is very much less than it would have been if those schools had not all been located there. So they cannot get it coming and going.
In connection with the elimination of universities from relief, I greatly doubt whether anybody would wish to disagree with this step, because in fact the day has long gone by when the relief is given to universities—the relief, in fact, is to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and as in recent years the tendency of the Government has been to load more and more on to the ratepayer, and to relieve the taxpayer, we must accept it as a small measure of belated assistance to the ratepayer that in this particular instance the Government have reversed the trend, and that the University Grants Committee accept the full responsibility of it.
I do not know whether this is the right way to do it. I read what had been said in another place on this measure, and I should like to correct the misapprehension of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. When speaking about the giving of relief to universities, he said in the Scottish Grand Committee:
"As the Committee will be aware, as to three of the universities, all of them, with the exception of St. Andrews, at present receive relief under local Acts."
I do not know whether he is correct in his arithmetic that three of them get relief. I have a feeling that he is right, but I am not certain. But he is certainly quite wrong when he mentions the exception as being St. Andrews. The position is that the University of St. Andrews did not receive any relief for that part of the University which is located in the City of St. Andrews, but it did receive substantial relief for Queen's

43
College, situated in the City of Dundee. In fact, the relief which was given to that part of the University of St. Andrews was the most generous in Scotland.
LORD CRAIGTON: The point, I think, is that my honourable friend was referring to local Acts. While it is agreed that Dundee does give relief to the part of St. Andrews University that is in Dundee, it is not given under any Act at all; it is not mandatory, but is purely discretionary relief. Therefore, my honourable friend is right and so is the noble Lord.
LORD HUGHES: I am not sure that he was right all the time, because in fact relief was given under a local Act. I think it was 48½ per cent. of occupiers' and 71 per cent. of owners' rates. It may be the other way round as to owners and occupiers, but I know that the percentages are right. I do not know how they arrived at the percentages, but it was certainly the highest measure of relief that was given, and it was only in 1957, when the whole question came up, that the present figure of 50 per cent. was substituted. That was done by local decision, by exercise of discretion; and since 1957, I gather, it has been a discretionary matter.
LORD CRAIGTON: Yes.
LORD HUGHES: I did not wish to lose the opportunity of correcting the impression that the meanest of the local authorities were those that had to do with the University of St. Andrews.
Your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in speaking to all the rest of the clauses. In fact, I will go further and say that doubtless you will be grateful to me in that I do not feel it necessary to go through all the other clauses. With the best intentions in the world I cannot even disagree with what he said on them, and for that reason I am content to say that I support the Second Reading of this Bill, and hope that, because of its urgency, it will be possible for it speedily to pass through so that the local authorities in Scotland may obtain the benefit of Clause 1 even
44
though, in order to get it, they may have to face the difficulty of Clause 4.
4.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I think that Clause 4 is the problem, because it is really most difficult to define the institutions which, under subsection (4), in the opinion of the Secretary of State
" ought to be classified with the institutions mentioned in the Schedule, or omitting any institution or altering the description of any institution."
It seems to me to be a difficult thing to define. If you do not like cats, you could argue that a cats' home is not charitable. Perhaps it is not. I do not think it ought to be. If you do not like foxes and think of them as vermin, you could argue that foxhounds were charitable institutions in helping to get rid of vermin. I think it is difficult to argue what is charitable and what is not, and I am not going to ask the Minister to give me a definition. Subsection (4) is supposed to make it clear to me, but I do not suppose it will make it clear to any court of law, or to anybody else that I am aware of. On that I can say no more at this stage; I do not even want an answer. But I am bothered if I understand how you are going to define a charitable institution under this Bill!
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, but I should like to ask a couple of questions about Clause 9. I can see that there may be some necessity for Clause 9 so far as clerical errors are concerned. But I do not like it, as I cannot see that there is anything to stop the valuation officer, on second thoughts, from saying that anything he thinks is undervalued is so because of a clerical error, and the poor person has to go to the expense of appealing against that decision. I cannot see what is the point of having arithmetical errors. If the arithmetical error is in arriving at the figure on the valuation roll, surely that is not meant to be covered by this clause. If the arithmetical error is just in adding up the totals at the end, I cannot see that it matters if that is perpetuated, as these totals do not mean anything anyway. I was wondering whether it is really necessary to have the words "or arithmetical" at all in that clause.
4.28 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to say one word about Clause 4, but before doing so I must confess to having an interest. Clause 4 affects me as it concerns the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I do not think any local authority in Scotland would wish to be hostile to that institution. The only buildings that we should worry about are our lifeboat houses, of which we have a number scattered all round the coast. At the moment we are engaged in improving them, having to adapt them to take a different kind of boat from that which the old houses would hold. The new kind of boat gives a greater measure of safety to the crews manning it. I am most grateful for Clause 4 because it will make a great deal of difference to us in effecting these alterations and in maintaining our lifeboat houses. The question of rates will naturally arise. If the houses are going to attract a larger charge, this will affect us. Therefore I hope that Clause 4 will be maintained so far as concerns the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.
4.30 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his welcome of the Bill. He twits me for describing these Bills as "small", or "useful", or "urgent". Of course he describes the Government in many ways; but this is the first time he has accused us of being cunning, in that we have tacked Clause 4 on to Clause 1. But, in all seriousness, I carefully examined the effect of the revaluation on the charities, and it was, I can assure him, very serious indeed. The matter was one of great urgency, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and all noble Lords feel that we should treat charities in the same way in Scotland as in England. I should like notice of the point about "or arithmetical" raised by my noble friend, but I will write to him about it. I am advised at the moment that "arithmetical error" means an error in calculation or adding up as against an error in professional opinion, if that is any help to him; but I should like to have another look at this question.
My noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn raised two points. First of all, he was not sure how one could decide what is or is not a charity. But
46
the yardstick we have taken is an absolutely cast-iron one and is one which is also used in England. Subsection (10) in Clause 4 says:
"Charity ' means an institution or other organisation … and 'charitable' is to be construed in the same way as if it were contained in the Income Tax Acts".
Therefore, if any organisation can satisfy the income tax authorities (and that is not too easy) that under the Income Tax Acts they should be exempt from income tax, it is right and proper that they should automatically get 50 per cent. rate rebate.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, does that include a home for lost cats? I am not keen abouts cats.
LORD CRAIGTON: If the Income Tax Acts allow the home for lost cats to be free of income tax, then it includes a home for lost cats.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am not at all sure the noble Lord has dealt with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, because not everything which is a charity within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts is going to get relief. The universities, for example, are charities and are specific, ally included. I thought that what the noble Lord was referring to was the Secretary of State's power to put other charitable bodies on that list. I assumed that it was intended that the ones that might be added to the list were other bodies—not universities, but perhaps similar in kind to universities, without naming other possible institutions in Glasgow which were in some doubt.
LORD CRAIGTON: I was coming to that, in fact. What the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, says is quite right: that my right honourable friend's power to add to the list of universities is limited; he has to decide not whether an organisation is a charity but whether it is in a similar class to the universities; for example, the Royal College of Science and Technology in Glasgow. If my noble friend looks at subsection (4) of Clause 4 he will see the words:
"… which in his opinion ought to be classified with the institutions mentioned in that Schedule".
That is a very limited power indeed. My Lords, I think I have answered all the questions put to me.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (NUMBERING AND CITATION) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MAINTENANCE OF BRITISH AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY
4.34 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government if they are aware that skilled aircraft workers, now becoming redundant at factories at Christchurch and Belfast, are accepting engagements with Fokker of Holland under a ten-year guarantee, and what steps are being taken to maintain an adequate British aircraft industry capable of utilising British skills in Britain. The noble Lord said: My Lords, no one would dispute that in aero engines, aircraft design and construction this country for decades has led the world or is among its leaders. The very names of the aircraft read like a roll of honour to the men who designed, built and flew them; men who, as designers, technicians and craftsmen, formed teams that were unsurpassed anywhere. We still have the men and the know-how, yet the question I have addressed to Her Majesty's Government lifts the curtain on what I regard as a tragedy: the rundown, possibly the destruction, of out once great aircraft industry.
It is a tragedy which, in my view, springs from the unparalleled muddle by the Government, the inefficiency of some managements, and the apparent disregard in some quarters for the well-being of the industry and the men employed in it. It has already resulted, and is resulting, in thousands of human tragedies, homes broken up, a lifetime's effort wasted. Men with high skills and qualifications peculiar to the aircraft industry are becoming virtually unemployable in their spheres, their career snuffed out, as it were, in a puff of redundancy. If they are too old to acquire new skills or to emigrate, they can take their place on the scrap heap. The younger ones, highly qualified technicians and skilled workers, are seeking employment overseas in the factories of our keenest competitors.
No one, of course, can possibly object to a man's going overseas to any country to better himself. But what I object to is the fact that aircraft workers from England and Northern Ireland are going to build aircraft in Holland, not to better themselves, but because they cannot build them here. My information comes from the factories concerned, and it is to the effect that the firm of Fokker of Holland are seeking skilled aircraft workers at Christchurch and Belfast. At Christchurch £18 a week has been offered, which with additional hotel and food allowances make a total of something like £26 a week for a week of 45 hours. These workers have been told that about 80 men can be absorbed per month—I do not know how long that will go on—and that there would be a guarantee of ten years' employment for them. Twenty fitters and sheet metal workers have already been recruited, although my information, as of to-day, is that they have not yet gone to Holland. It is understood that there will be vacancies for staff grades later on.
Twenty-five Belfast workers went to Holland for £9 per week plus £4 subsistence and a family allowance, coming to something like £16 or £17 per week. This indicates that the Dutch company fully appreciates the difference between the employment and economic situations in Northern Ireland and in England. I understand that some of the workers have already returned to Belfast, so possibly conditions are not quite what they thought they would be.
I note from the newspapers that the Fokker Company challenged the complete accuracy of my information. They say, for example, that it is a few dozen men, not 80. Well, I should not be disposed to quarrel too much with that. It does not take many dozen to make 80. They say they have not offered a ten-year guarantee. They do, however, admit that they wish to engage our redundant workers in order to relieve an acute labour shortage in the Dutch aircraft industry. This proves that a small country like Holland has more aircraft orders than her workers can cope with, whereas we have so few orders, comparatively, that we are shutting down established plants and sacking skilled workers by the thousand. I want to know why this should be.
Some three or four years ago, as the House will recall, Mr. Duncan Sandys, then Minister of Aviation, launched the Government's plan to, in my own phrase, rationalise the British aircraft industry. The strongest pressure was brought to bear on the firms, and as a result we have the two big consortia of to-day, the Hawker-Siddeley Group and the British Aircraft Corporation, each incorporating many formerly independent firms and a large number of factories. Whatever misgivings some of us may have had, we had the hope that these groupings would lead to greater efficiency and thus to a greater volume of business, and, of course, employment. We had seen the tragedies of Squires Gate, the Isle of Wight and Broughton, areas whose existence to a large extent had depended on the aircraft industry, and we hoped that further similar misfortunes might be avoided elsewhere.
For a time, optimistic statements by the directors of various concerns appeared to justify this hope. For example, at the last annual meeting Sir Thomas Sopwith, the Chairman of the Hawker-Siddeley Group, was able to announce that total sales of the group for the 17 months to December, 1960, amounted to £458 million, and, perhaps more important still, that the order book at that date stood at the record total of £366 million. He also said:
"We have 125,000 employees and it is on their skill and loyalty that our future depends".
He added:
"I share with the people of Britain a sense of joy in the knowledge that we are now launched on a journey into tomorrow."
There was nothing in the balance sheet and nothing in the Chairman's statement to indicate that, within a few months, many of those 125,000 skilled and loyal employees were going to be launched into a journey into redundancy, but that is exactly what is now happening.
Just consider, my Lords, what is now happening at some of our greatest aircraft factories all in the Hawker-Siddeley group, as a result of the policy of concentration and closure. De Havilland's Portsmouth factory, which was opened in 1934 and was their Airspeed Division, is to be shut down in June, except for the toolroom and machine shop. Of the 1,800 men employed there as recently
50
as September last, some 1,500 will lose their jobs, and only about 300 will be left. During the last few years the main construction work at this factory has been on the Sea Vixen and more recently on the Trident, but the plant is capable of all types of aircraft construction, from toolroom to large airframe units. The teams are to be broken up. The plant will be closed. As yet no buyer has appeared, and one of the largest employers in the Portsmouth area will disappear.
With regard to Christchurch, this fine factory, which once employed 2,000 operatives, is to shut down by next July. Every week now some workers receive their notice. Its Sea Vixen work is going to the Chester factory and the Trident work is going to Hatfield. A few employees will be transferred to these factories and I am glad to say that those who own their homes will be helped to dispose of them and will receive removal and settling-in allowances. My Lords, the vast majority will get just their three days' to eight weeks' terminal pay according to their length of service, and they then face the grim task of finding employment in an area where there is small demand for their skill. Many have settled there and are buying their homes. This does not mean just the death of a factory; to some extent it is the death of a district.
Then there is Chester—I call it the Chester factory, although it is in North Wales, some six miles from Chester. It has a total labour force of some 4,000, including 1,630 so-called direct workers who are paid by hourly rates. It was intended to reduce the figure of 1,630 to 600 by next July, but sub-contracts and the transfer of work from Portsmouth and Christchurch have somewhat modified that position. My Lords, only a super-optimist would regard the future with any confidence, and those men who can find openings elsewhere are not waiting to get the sack.
This even applies to the de Havilland factory at Hatfield, which could be described as the hub of the whole enterprise, because it does the initial development work on most contracts before they are farmed out to the other factories. At present this factory has 3,500 employees. They have been on overtime and, so far as can be ascertained, there is work at

51
that factory for at least twelve months ahead. Since there is no apparent plan for the industry, either short-term or long-term, what certainty can the men have about their future when they see what is happening all around them? It is small wonder that even at this factory men are leaving of their own accord.
I think that the saddest and most discreditable story of all is that of one of the oldest and most famous of our aircraft factories, the Gloster Aircraft Company. Last August, the fears of its 3,500 workers were dispelled by the announcement of the Armstrong Whitworth-Gloster amalgamation. Everyone knew it was a shotgun marriage induced by the Government's policy of, as it were, coercing the industry to organise itself into a few large units, but at least their jobs were safe, or so they thought. Even as recently as the November issue, the Whitworth-Gloster News—that is a factory newspaper published for the employees—carried the line:
"Whitworth-Gloster is among the better-placed of the British companies in the present situation, and mutual understanding and co-operation can see us through the critical times ahead. Rumours of widespread redundancy are without foundation".
That was in the November issue of the Whitworth-Gloster News, but on November 13 the directors met and subsequently announced that they had
"regretfully decided that it would be necessary to close the company's Gloster works by May, 1962".
My Lords, there seems to have been a glaring inconsistency between their optimistic public statements and the state of the order book.
Appeals were made to the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Aviation, but Mr. Thorneycroft said bluntly that he had no intention of interfering with "a purely commercial decision"; or of taking any steps, apparently, to get alternative work into the 600,000 square feet of factory space. My Lords, I think, and I hope, you will agree with me that this just is not good enough. If we were in the midst of a world depression there would be some excuse, but there is no excuse when other countries with less resources are busy while we are idle and doing nothing about it, in this industry.
Your Lordships may have seen a letter in The Times on February 1 from Mr. Oliver Stewart, who lives on the Isle of Wight. He suggested that:
"Britain's aircraft industry will be in a bad way if the placing of Government orders is to be determined by factors having nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the aircraft. There would be no quicker way to debase technical quality and to put British industry out of the running for future export markets."
He instanced the choice which is apparently to be made between the Handley Page Herald, the Avro 748 and the Canadian Caribou. From such evidence as I can gather, it seems to me that Handley Page have not been allowed to demonstrate their plane or to show its qualities, and it would appear that they are being offered the alternative of amalgamating with or being swallowed up by one of the two big consortia, or of going out of business. That may be necessary—I really do not know: but we ought to be satisfied, first of all, about the qualities of the aircraft that they are offering.
Mr. Stewart concludes by saying that Mr. Duncan Sandys's policy of regrouping the aircraft industry in a few large units, far from being a desirable policy, is now clearly seen as being damaging, if not disastrous, to British technical ascendancy in aeronautics. I sincerely hope that Mr. Stewart is quite wrong about that; but I should like to know from the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, whether it is true that this Handley Page company have been denied the opportunity to demonstrate the qualities of their aircraft to a Government Department, and if it is true, as the Sunday Telegraph said only last Sunday, on February 4, that Mr. Thorneycroft would not commit himself when the heads of major aircraft companies asked him to give a clear-cut programme of future projects.
Then, is it the case that no new research and development contracts have been placed for two years? Or that Hawkers' Advanced Projects Group was recently broken up? My Lords, can we know why the Minister has so far declined to hold a conference of Commonwealth air lines, by which means sensible arrangements could be made about their future aircraft requirements, and where we could hope to get customers among our own kith and kin?

53
All these things would seem to me to be the most essential things to do.
And when, I would ask the Minister, will decisions be taken regarding the many operational Service requirements, to say nothing of urgent needs in the civil field? Take the supersonic airliner, for example, on which we shall possibly collaborate with France and the United States. That represents some 14½ million man-hours, of which some 12 million man-hours will be spent on air-frame construction. It is said in the newspapers that all that work is going to France. It is now being said or suggested that even the engines will not be made here: that the 2 million man-hours on the engines will not be worked in Britain. If we are going to share in this enterprise with two other countries, and presumably share the capital cost and the research cost, surely we ought to have a fair share in the work. That seems a reasonable enough proposition. I do submit, my Lords, that if decisions on this and other projects could be taken soon, it might yet be possible to save these factories and, above all, avoid breaking up the skilled teams which may otherwise be irretrievably lost.
Finally, my Lords, I would submit to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, that there are two minimum demands which, in my submission, the Government must satisfy. The first is that, with the industry, the employers and the unions, they should decide its future size, based on an agreed programme of production. That would at least enable redundancy to be handled in an orderly way, and sufficiently far in advance to find alternative work for the factories which have to become empty. The second minimum requirement, I think, is that the Government should be prepared to apply the equivalent of development area procedure (I cannot think of a better phrase to convey my meaning) to redundant plants, with the object of employing as many of the skilled workers as possible in jobs related to their skills. It must be perfectly obvious to the noble Lord that if 3,000 or 4,000 men, mostly skilled men, become redundant in a matter of a few months, in an area where their factory was the main, if not the only, source of employment, and they started their homes there, it will not be easy for them to transfer themselves,
54
their families and their possessions to other places, even if work is available.
The best and most sensible thing is to make special efforts, even with the employment of, as I say, the equivalent of development area procedure, to bring comparable industries to the area where those skills or skills analogous to them can be used. We are tired of hearing of the great shortage of skilled workers and of the difficulty of replacing them. Here are some who are going begging, and if the Government really mean business, if they are determined to recover the economic leeway we have lost, they will, I think, consolidate the aircraft industry and, above all, give it fresh hope, and they will make sure that no skilled worker goes to Holland, or anywhere else, simply because he despairs of a chance to employ his skill in Britain.
4.57 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has raised this question, even if it is only because it gives me the opportunity of putting matters into perspective and perhaps dissipating some of the gloom which he seems to have spread. The noble Lord paid a well-deserved tribute to the aircraft industry, and to all those connected with it. But when he said that the present position was a tragedy and was the result of unparalleled muddle, I really suggest he does not know what he is talking about. I should like first of all to deal with the general situation, and then to deal with the position of Fokker's.
Let us just think about this British aircraft industry, and try to make some comparison with the European situation—because Fokker, of course, is part of the European situation. The British aircraft industry occupies a very dominant position in Europe. In the last eighteen months it has increased its labour force from some 280,000 people to 300,000 people; and order books actually have been lengthening. Of course, it is difficult to get fully comparable figures, but I put these figures forward so that your Lordships might have some means of comparison. The French industry, so far as I can establish, employs about 85,000 people; West Germany some 15,000; and the rest of Free

55
Europe some 40,000. I would say that the British industry is, in general, the best equipped and the most advanced technologically. It is powerfully backed by research work in Government establishments, such as the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, and by Government spending.
I spoke to your Lordships in our civil aviation debate on November 22, 1961, and you will see that in column 929 I dealt with this question. I pointed out that the industry, on the strength of the pledges of Government support which were announced on February 15, 1960, had organised itself into groups—two fixed-wing aircraft groups, two engine groups, and one helicopter group—and was busy in streamlining these organisations to get full benefit from this plan. Then I went on to say [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 235 (No. 11) cols. 929 and 930]:
"Unfortunately, there are bound to be some redundancies … but the Government will … keep in mind, as they always do, the needs of those who are affected. I do not think we should be surprised or dismayed, however, that for a time we shall have to grapple with this problem of redundancy. It is something that the industry must work out and with which they are competent to deal."
So there is nothing new in the situation which Lord Stonham has painted in such graphic terms. I went on to say:
"The Government are still convinced that a substantial aircraft industry is necessary in the national interest, and that Government help is essential for the launching of new transport aircraft and aero-engine projects."
Now, the object of the rationalisation of the industry was that it could become more efficient in every way, and it is not surprising that here and there it is taking steps to co-ordinate its resources. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said how important it was to decide with the industry what its future size should be, having regard to a five-year plan, or something of that kind. I suggest it is wrong to think of this industry as having to be of any predetermined size. The right size of the industry will vary from time to time, having regard to military and commercial needs. Government orders cannot be placed, nor can the industry be forced to run itself uneconomically, merely to maintain a labour force of a particular size. That would be gross waste of manpower and effort.
56
I should like to say here that direct Government support to the industry is on a massive scale. Expenditure on the production of military aircraft is running at the rate of some £200 million a year. In addition, large sums are being spent on research and development of military aircraft, and we are supporting transport projects to the tune of some £10 million a year. The position is not a static one; nor do I think it can be in this industry. We cannot really expect to have a five-or ten-year plan and stick to it; it is not the nature of the industry to do so.
I should like to refer to this particular case of the workers who have gone to Fokker. They are being recruited privately by the Fokker Company, but my information is that not more than twenty workers have been recruited from Northern Ireland, and none has yet been recruited from Christchurch. The Fokker concern is, in a general way, aware of the situation in these factories, and it is trying to recruit a limited number of people from them as a temporary measure. The men would receive, I am informed, British rates of pay, with lodging allowances and travelling expenses in addition; but there has never been any question of a ten-year guarantee, as mentioned in the Question. As I say, to the best of my information at present recruitment is limited to not more, and probably fewer, than twenty men.
I should like to explain to your Lordships, with your permission, the situation at Christchurch and Belfast. The Christchurch factory has been occupied by the de Havilland Aircraft Company—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, might I be permitted to interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? My information from the men to-day is that twenty men at Christchurch have accepted contracts; none has yet gone. However, I hope the noble Lord will agree that that is not the limit of the Fokker Company's requirements for labour.
LORD MILLS: No, my Lords, I understand it is not the limit, but the number of recruits they are seeking is not large; it is quite small. I have to-day made inquiries on the subject. I was saying that the Christchurch factory has been occupied by the de Havilland Aircraft Company, which is a member of the

57
Hawker Siddeley group. They have been engaged in the production of Sea Vixens for the Royal Navy. Substantial numbers of these aircraft have been delivered, and the remaining requirements are not sufficient to keep the factory economically employed. Hawker Siddeley, therefore, decided to give up this factory, as part of their plan to rationalise their productive capacity. The Government understood and welcomed that. We think it is right that the newly formed aircraft groups should streamline their production wherever that adds to their efficiency and power to compete. At the same time, we are doing all we can to ensure that any hard-ship among the Christchurch workers will be minimised.
There is an important development here—namely, that the Beagle Aircraft Group, who have a good chance of helping our exports by the sale of light aircraft, have asked to take over the Christchurch factory and airfield. Provided that negotiations can be satisfactorily concluded, I suggest that this will result in the best use in the national interest of the assets and labour skills which are available there, although I do not disguise the fact that it will take some time for the Beagle Group to build up their production and get together the full labour force they may eventually require.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think that I am right in saying to the noble Lord that this is not only a very welcome move, but is also immediate—almost as of to-day: it has just been announced. This is the kind of thing, that I had hoped Her Majesty's Government would try to do.
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords, it is a very recent announcement. Meantime, the Ministry of Labour have opened a special office in the Christchurch factory to do everything they can to help surplus workers to find other jobs. Shortt Brothers and Harland, in Belfast, whose labour force has remained more or less stable over the last year, are engaged in the manufacture of Belfast freighters for the R.A.F. and on a variety of other projects.
I think that we shall all agree that it would be a matter of the greatest regret
58
if skilled workers had to look for or accept work overseas because of the lack of productive jobs at home. The number we are talking about in this case, compared with the number employed in the industry, is, of course, negligible. The general situation, which is the important one, arises from our decision—or rather the industry's decision, perhaps at the Government's prompting—to streamline itself in order that it can be more powerful to engage in the research necessary and in production, and to meet what is an increasing degree of competition. Our aircraft industry, on both the airframe and air engine sides, is much too valuable for us to let it slide away. It is big; I believe that it is efficient, and the Government have already said that they will do everything to support it.