Lords Sitting of 4 August 1966

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield

LOCKED LETTER-BOXES IN POST OFFICES
3.6 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: 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 steps they are taking to extend the installation in post offices of locked letter-boxes for the collection of mail.]
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, locked boxes are installed at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, London Western District Office, and Warrington, and experiments will start at three other offices later this year. If the new service is a success, it will be extended to other post offices in all parts of the country.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that the private collection of mail by business firms and individuals is widely practised in many countries, and whether he would not agree that a substantial saving in time, cost and manpower could be effected if it were more widely adopted in this country?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, yes, I am quite aware of that, because the noble Lord told me about it a few minutes ago. I fully appreciate that this will provide not only a facility, but a considerable saving. For the benefit of noble Lords, may I explain that what is proposed—what indeed is in operation in the three areas I have named, and is in prospect for three others—is the supply of a box, the key to which is given to the renter or hirer, who can therefore open it at any time without the assistance of Post Office staff. This is a highly desirable innovation, and we hope to extend it in due course.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as a former Member of Parliament for Warrington, may I ask my noble friend to satisfy my curiosity and tell me why Warrington was chosen?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, it may be because the noble Lady was once the Member for Parliament for Warrington. I personally see no reason why Warrington should be selected sooner than Leyton, which I know quite well.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: In other words, my noble friend does not know.

OVERSEAS AID
3.9 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: 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 has so far been achieved by the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Voluntary Committee on Overseas Aid and Development and what further joint activity they have in mind for the immediate future.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I must emphasise the independence of this most useful Committee. The Ministry contributes to the cost of its secretariat and, in order to establish liaison, sends an observer to its meetings. To date, the Committee has appointed a secretary; it has established offices, and it has appointed, in consultation with the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, two education officers who have initiated an education programme. It is proving a valuable forum for consultation among the member societies.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, and to go on to ask him whether he, and the Ministry for which he is speaking, are fully aware of the great potentials that exist arising out of the relationship between the Ministry and this voluntary Committee. Is the noble Lord aware—I am sure he is—that the results achieved abroad by our overseas development policy depend in

1455
a direct way upon the support for them by the public at home? Is the noble Lord further aware that, through this Committee, his Ministry have the services of all the OXFAM collectors, Christian Aid Committees, and U.N.O. branches throughout the country; and can he assure us that the Ministry will develop this relationship with imagination and drive?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that what the noble Lord himself said, when we debated the Overseas Aid Bill earlier, will have done much to call the attention of the Ministry to the—as he put it—potential of this voluntary Committee, and I will certainly urge that every opportunity is taken to use the body for the constructive purpose which the noble Lord apparently has in mind.

RHODESIA: BRITISH EXPORTS TO SOUTH AFRICA AND PORTUGAL
3.11 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 their information confirms the continual reports in the Press on the damage to British exports to South Africa and Portugal caused by deteriorating sentiment towards the United Kingdom; and whether, particularly, in view of the importance of trade with South Africa, our third largest export market, they realise the extent to which delay in a solution to the problem of the de facto Government of Rhodesia is contributing to this.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, our exports to Portugal in the period from December, 1965, to May this year, actually increased by £3·6 million over their level in the corresponding period 1964–65. Although our exports to South Africa in the same period fell by £2·3 million compared with the corresponding period, this was a consequence of South African control restrictions which affected all our major competitors. Our trade was held better than that of the majority
1456
of our major competitors. As regards the second part of the Question, we have done our utmost to bring Rhodesia back to constitutional rule. We do not accept the Smith régime as a de facto Government.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that exports to South Africa have actually fallen by 18 per cent.? These exports are composed largely of heavy equipment, and South Africa is our largest market in the world in those articles. Is the noble Lord further aware that sentiment may have quite an effect? Shipments of gold from South Africa to the United Kingdom, which are down by more than 50 per cent. in the first six months of this year as against last year, may be affected very much by adverse thinking, though he may well say—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD BARNBY: Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that South Africa is building up her own reserves, but the total—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD BARNBY: Perhaps the noble Lord can confirm that the total shipments are over 50 per cent. down.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying to the House that we are incurring unpopularity in certain parts of the world because we are doing what is right in Rhodesia, then I hope that he and his friends are prepared to incur this unpopularity. As for confirming the 50 per cent. drop in our trade, according to the trade figures we have in fact, as I said, fallen by £2·3 million over the corresponding period in the previous year; and while our exports went down by 8 per cent., the exports of France went down by 10·6 percent., those of West Germany by 22·9 per cent., and of Japan by 20·8 per cent.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, can we be assured by my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government will not be deflected merely by economic or financial considerations from seeking a solution to the problem of Rhodesia on proper grounds?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that that is the attitude which the

1457
majority of Members on both sides of the House would adopt.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask, as a matter of constitutional principle, if this Government do not recognise the Smith régime as a de facto Government. with whom Mr. Watson and Mr. Wright have been talking?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the permanent officials of the Civil Service of this country have been talking with permanent officials of the Civil Service of Rhodesia.
LORD OGMORE: And by what Government, my Lords, are the civil servants of Rhodesia employed?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, they are members of the governmental machine in Rhodesia.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that it is estimated that something approaching £300 million worth of exports to the Union of South Africa have already been lost by direct Government action in banning the export of aircraft, ships and electronic equipment, and that to a country with which we are maintaining a defence agreement? Is it still to be the policy of the Government to exacerbate the present balance-of-payments crisis by this action, while at the same time they are asking sacrifices of the country to increase exports?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I would have thought that, whatever economic policy we pursue, we should have in mind some larger social objectives, and I cannot see that we should allow monetary considerations to govern completely our foreign policy.
LORD GRIMSTON or WESTBURY: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that this Government are maintaining a defence agreement with the Union of South Africa, so these high moral considerations really sound rather hypo-critical.
LORD REAY: My Lords, might not Her Majesty's Government conclude that it could be in the British long-term interest to reduce the degree of our commercial dependence on South Africa, in case the day might arise when the Government of this country could no longer
1458
resist international political pressure to apply sanctions against South Africa, and to this end would they consider withdrawing their export promotion council from South Africa now?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, I might add something to what I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury. I did not use the word "moral" in this context; I think it is difficult to use the word "moral" in some of these matters. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that if we did apply high moral considerations when deciding with whom we should trade the possibility would be that we should find ourselves on an island doing trade with no one.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, when the noble Lord says there has been a welcome slight increase in our exports to Portugal, does he mean Portugal herself or Angola and Mozambique?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was quoting from the Board of Trade statistics.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, there is a difference.
LORD BESWICK: Portugal.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can Her Majesty's Government tell us what their attitude is towards the resumption of trade relations between Zambia and Rhodesia?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am afraid I do not follow the course of my noble friend's reasoning.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us the percentage of the increase in exports to Portugal compared with what I imagine is an increase in exports to the other EFTA countries during the same period?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should be delighted to give the noble Duke the references in the Board of Trade statistics if he will give me notice of the question.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's first reply, is it to be understood that his view is that should there be a change in the movement of gold from London to other places and

1459
that it would have no adverse effect on sterling? Secondly, can he confirm that the balance of trade between South Africa and this country for the current six months as against the last six months has deteriorated from 70 million rands to 10 million rands?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what I have said, I have said. I am not expanding on any economic theme. I am saying that I believe we are doing the right thing in Rhodesia and we shall continue to do so. All I would add to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in answer to whose question I think I was rather less than courteous or forthcoming, is that I accept the fact that we should have regard to the nature of the régime or the Government with which we deal, but I do not think, in all honesty, that we can apply what were referred to as "high moral considerations".
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's answer to this question, would Her Majesty's Government not agree, in view of the present trend of negotiations over this matter, that unless a solution is found which is acceptable not only to Her Majesty's Government but to the de facto Government of Rhodesia, the results will be the destruction of the Rhodesian economy? Would Her Majesty's Government not agree that the great train of consequences arising from such a destruction would involve also the High Commission Territories of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland, whose hope of a happy future would be endangered by those circumstances if they eventuate?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has made some very weighty remarks. I hope they are taken fully into account by Mr. Smith and his minority régime.
LORD MacPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the loss of invisible earnings from South Africa, in particular on insurance?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am aware of all these factors. I am sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House are aware of them. I still think that in these matters we should do what we believe to be right.

FUTURE BUSINESS AND THE SUMMER RECESS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships what we hope for by way of Business next week. We hope to take the Prices and Incomes Bill through all stages on Thursday next. Assuming that we achieve that, we would expect, again subject to Business, that the House could rise for the Summer Recess on Friday, August 12, and it has been suggested that Parliament should return on Tuesday, October 18.
This afternoon, at approximately 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will make a Statement on the proposed Parliamentary Commissioner.

UNITED KINGDOM OIL PIPELINES BILL
3.22 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) rose to move, That Standing Order No. 147 be considered in order to its being, dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read a third time. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think I ought to explain briefly to the House the purpose of this Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill. Standing Order No. 147 provides for the deposit of a copy of a Bill, as amended in Committee, with various Government Departments not less than three clear days before the Third Reading of the Bill. This Bill is a late Bill, and owing to this could not be considered by the Committee on Unopposed Bills before last Tuesday; that is, the day before yesterday. If it is to go through its remaining stages in another place in order to receive the Royal Assent before this House rises, it must receive its Third Reading this afternoon. I therefore beg to move that Standing Order No. 147 be considered in order to its being dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 147 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a, with the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

DRUGS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) ACT 1964 MODIFICATION ORDER 1966.
3.25 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 Modification Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before the House on July 21, be approved. The Order adds certain hallucinogenic substances, notably LSD-25, psilocybin and mescaline, to the Schedule to the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act. As your Lordships will be aware, when a substance is controlled under the Act, manufacturers, and dealers in bulk, have to register with the Home Office. Import is prohibited except under licence, and anyone who obtains drugs, other than on prescription, commits an offence, unless it is necessary for him to have the substance in his possession for professional purposes.
In 1965, LSD-25 (lysergic acid dyethylamide) and psilocybin were first included in the Fourth Schedule to the Poisons Rules (under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933), and were thus restricted to sale on prescription from registered premises by or under the supervision of a qualified pharmacist. The Poisons Board recommended that these substances should be more strictly controlled by a Rule prohibiting retail supply except to duly qualified medical practitioners or bona fide research workers. Effect was given to this recommendation in Rule 17(4) of the Poisons Rules 1966, which came into operation on July 6. The Board also recommended that the substances should be controlled under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964. Mescaline has not been controlled under the poisons law because there has been no evidence of its being used in this country. But the Poisons
1462
Board has recently recommended that it should be so controlled and also that it should be controlled under the 1964 Act in case it should be imported and misused in substitution for LSD-25 and psilocybin.
The Order now before you is in accordance with the recommendations of the Poisons Board, which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is required to consult, under Section 6 of the Act, before making an order to modify the Schedule. It is the view of the Poisons Board that control should be applied by using generic descriptions so as to ensure that any new analogous compounds which are produced may be automatically controlled. This makes the Order difficult for the layman to understand—a not unusual circumstance—and it is further complicated because the Schedule to the Act, which has not been modified hitherto, was cast in a form to cover not only specified substances and compounds, but also their salts, and substances containing any proportion of the substances, compounds or salts. Additions to the Schedule therefore have had to be made by interpolating fresh paragraphs and recasting some of the existing ones.
LSD-25 (lysergic acid dyethylamide) is the best known of the substances which will be controlled under the Order. It is a powerful hallucinogenic drug and is used by psychiatrists in the investigation of mental illness. It interferes in a way as yet unknown with brain chemistry but is thought to have a value in treating chronic alcoholics and severe psychoneurotics. Extremely small doses produce profound effects upon mental functions and it can cause psychological disturbances and changes in perception, including visual hallucinations. Doctors are generally agreed that it can have harmful effects when used without medical supervision, and there is some evidence that it is being misused, particularly by young people. It is colourless, odourless and tasteless, and is commonly taken by drug users onlumps of sugar or even with impregnated blotting paper, which they suck. Among the more important analogous compounds falling within the generic description in the Order, are lysergic acid amide and isolysergic acid amide, which are about one-twentieth as powerful as LSD-25. It has been established that very small

1463
quantities—0·06 per cent—of these amides may be present in one species of Morning Glory seeds (Ipomea violacea) available in this country, and slightly less in what is somewhat euphorically described as the "Pearly Gates" variety. But there is a consensus of expert opinion, based on clinical research reported in America, that the risk arising from misuse of these seeds is negligible. Seeds are therefore exempted from control under paragraph 7A of the Schedule to the Order.
Psilocybin is another hallucinogenic drug capable of being misused and this falls within the generic description in paragraph 5C. Mescaline, which is comparable in effect to LSD-25, but less potent, is controlled by paragraph 5E of the Schedule to the Order. There is a very restricted trade in the cactus from which this substance is derived, and my right honourable friend has been advised that no harm would be done by allowing this to continue. Provisionis made for this by the exemption in paragraph 7A. This exemption applies when the cactus is alive but not when it is dead.
This Order, which I am asking your Lordships to approve, will not interfere in any way with the use of these substances by qualified psychiatrists, but it will both regulate the licit trade in them and enable the police to take action when persons are found to be in unauthorised possession of them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 Modification Order 1966, laid before the House on July 21, 1966, be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that we all welcome this Order, and would like to thank the noble Lord for his usual lucid and, on this occasion, fascinating introduction of the Order. One can well understand that, with all the other things on their mind, Her Majesty's Government do not want to have to contend with hallucinations as well. I am particularly asked by my noble friend Lord Derwent, who is unfortunately not able to be with us this afternoon, to thank the noble Lord for reacting so speedily to the suggestions he
1464
made when we were last discussing this subject on June 30.
Noble Lords will have seen in The Times of Tuesday this week a rather alarming report from America about what is going on in connection with these drugs over there. That article makes the point that LSD is not particularly difficult to manufacture if you can get hold of some lysergic acid. Not being a chemist, I am not quite sure whether this substance is included in the Order, and I think it might be helpful if the noble Lord assured us that it is, because otherwise the Order does not seem to be entirely effective. I think we should also be helped if, before we leave the subject, he could assure us that he and the Home Office have all the powers they need with which to curb and control the misuse of these drugs.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether LSD-25 is the drug that enables you to remember what happened when you were born?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think that the hallucinatory effect created is not to enable you to remember back like that, but rather to forget and imagine that you are otherwise and elsewhere than you in fact are. But, of course, LSD is not the only substance that can create that illusion: I have known people who thought they could fly on four pints of bitter.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for welcoming the Order, and for his kind words about the prompt action we have taken, which I think was most necessary. He referred to the interesting article in The Times, under the heading, "Reports from America", and raised the particular point about whether other substances derived from these chemicals which, he said, quite truly, were fairly easily manufactured, would be covered. The answer is "Yes", because we have described the generic substance, so that if there are new derivatives and new inventions from that, they will be covered by the present Order. As to the powers, we have taken all the powers that it is possible for us to take at present under the law. They will give the police adequate power in the event of misuse, except that, of course, as with all crimes or breaches of the

1465
law, the police have first to discover the criminal.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment, to say that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is quite correct in thinking that LSD does in some people produce what may be a complete illusion that they can remember natal experience.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is the hallucination; it is not a fact of memory.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I also add a note of welcome to this Order? Perhaps I might also ask my noble friend whether he is quite satisfied that the penalties imposed for a breach of this Order are adequate to suppress any abuse of these drugs?
LORD STONHAM: Well, my Lords, they are the penalties imposed under the 1964 Act, and, apart from fines, they include a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment. In so far as our knowledge of the working of the Act goes—and there have been a number of prosecutions under it—the penalties are adequate. But if they should prove not to be so, of course we will look at the matter again.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, is it the case that any doctor is able to prescribe LSD, or lysergic acid in some form, as a treatment for certain disorders? If that is the case, must we not reckon with the fact that a certain number of doctors will over-prescribe? And has the noble Lord any plans to stop up this loophole?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, a doctor is a professionally qualified medical practitioner, and therefore has the authority to prescribe any legal drug or substance. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question, he will probably be aware that this matter was considered by the Brain Committee, and that we are at present urgently considering their recommendations and discussing, in particular, with the British Medical Council the question of the control of the prescription by doctors of drugs of addiction. I am hopeful that we shall come to agreement soon on this particular and important point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1966.
3.38 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Asian Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1966, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on July 12. This Order is required to give effect to Chapter8 of the Agreement, to which we are a signatory, establishing the Asian Development Bank. The Bank is a project of the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East and 22 countries agreed the project on December 4 last. Subsequently, I understand, a further nine signatures have been added.
The purpose of the Bank is to make avaliable additional development finance by mobilising funds both inside and outside the region, but it will give priority in the use of those funds to regional and sub-regional development projects. It is in some ways comparable to the Inter-American and African Development Banks, but unlike other regional banks, it acknowledges the part which developing countries can play in assisting Asian economic development by extending full membership to non-regional development countries such as the United Kingdom. The progress made since 1965 towards the establishment of the Bank is considerable, and noble Lords will be interested to learn that 65 per cent. of the Bank's initial capital is being provided by Asian countries.
The purpose of the present draft Order is to enable Her Majesty's Government to implement the provisions of the Agreement relating to immunities and privileges. In recent years both this House and another place have expressed their concern at the apparently growing number of organisations and individuals to whom is granted special immunity and privilege. With that in mind, while pointing out that this Order needs to be made before the United Kingdom can proceed to ratification of the agreement, I would also stress that the extent of immunity and privilege is limited. For example, an exception from immunity is made

1467
both for the organisation and its officers in respect of civil proceedings relating to motor vehicle accidents and motor traffic offences. This limitation will mean that the organisation and all its employees will be subject to the jurisdiction of our courts in respect of proceedings, both civil and criminal, which arise out of motor offences and accidents.
A second exception is that proceedings arising out of the exercise of the Bank's powers to borrow money, guarantee obligations, or buy, sell or underwrite the sale of securities, are not covered. This means that when the Bank is raising loans or engaging in any of the financial transactions which will form part of its functions, it will be in the same position as any other entity and not protected from suit. This limitation should ensure the ability of the Bank to raise money on terms as favourable as any other commercial enterprise. We shall also be making a reservation to our ratification of the Agreement in respect of deduction of tax at the source in the United Kingdom and in the privileged use of telecommunications in the United Kingdom.
Under the present Order all officers and staff, including governors and directors of the Bank, are entitled only to a minimum level of privilege and immunity in respect of their official acts, and to exemption from income tax in respect of their official emoluments. From the immunity in respect of official acts, which is essential to enable officers to discharge their functions freely, there are excepted, as I have indicated, civil or criminal proceedings relating to motor vehicle damage or accidents. I might add that, although immunity is restricted in the way I have described, the Order in any case will have little practical effect in this country since it is not at present foreseen that the Bank will establish regional offices here, or indeed need to send missions to this country. Nevertheless, the Order is essential to enable us to implement fully our obligations, which we shall freely accept on ratification of the agreement. We have a particular concern to see that the Bank will be able to function efficiently and successfully. As care has been taken to ensure that the limited character of the Order accords with views previously expressed in this House, I hope that approval will
1468
be given and my Motion accepted. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Asian Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1966, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th July.—(Lord Beswick.)
3.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord for having explained this Order. As he has said, there has been considerable concern in your Lordships' House in the past about the proliferation of diplomatic immunities and privileges. But, in accordance with precedent, in view of the limitations which the noble Lord has described very precisely, and the fact that it will not have very much effect in this country itself, and also that officials will enjoy only the basic minimum of immunities and privileges, I do not think we can have any objection to the Order. Therefore, I hope that it will pass.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before we part with this Order may I ask the noble Lord whether these gentlemen can be taken to court if, for instance, they do not pay their rent for any house or building they occupy? I do not quite see why the employees of this Bank should require immunity from income tax. The noble Lord explained that it was essential for their proper functioning. I am equally clear that it would be essential for my proper functioning in this House that I should claim immunity from income tax, but there is very small likelihood that anybody would give it to me. Why are these people so singled out? If the noble Lord replies that they are a Government organisation, what about the Bank of England, what about the Reserve Bank of India, what about the various State banking associations? I simply do not know why it is necessary that we should give this privilege to a bank.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I may first answer the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, the reason that it is necessary to give it to this particular Bank is that it is not an ordinary commercial bank. Its capital is provided by, and its operations are at the behest of, Governments and States. As the money is provided by Governments and States, it would obviously be

1469
very wrong for a Government to tax monies which are provided by other Governments. If the noble Lord were representing this country in the United States, as some noble Lords have, I think he would find it strange if the Government of the United States were to tax the emoluments which he received from the United Kingdom Government. This is a convention as between Governments, and I should have thought that it was acceptable.
With regard to the point about the employees of the Bank being liable to civil or criminal proceedings if they did not pay rent, if in the inconceivable circumstances of the non-paid rent being for premises which they were occupying in order to carry out the purposes of the Bank—
LORD HAWKE: I am thinking of their private dwellings.
LORD BESWICK: If the noble Lord is thinking of their private dwellings, he will have in mind the phrase I used about actions taken in accordance with the duties of the Bank, as an officer of the bank. I should not have thought it would apply to any behaviour in connection with their own private residences.
So far as the general question of immunities is concerned, I much appreciate what the noble Earl, Lord Bess borough, said. I thank him for welcoming the Bill, and both he and the House may be interested to know, on this general question of immunities and privileges, a matter which has exercised the minds of noble Lords before now, that there is a Committee on Legal Co-operation of the Council of Europe reviewing this whole field. The United Kingdom will be in the chair, and the object of this exercise is to try to get commonly accepted rules which will give proper protection to international civil servants, without unnecessary privilege. I should have thought that this is something we would all welcome. I hope that that answers the questions that have been raised.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, might I ask my noble friend to clear up one point? Is not the Asian Development Bank in the same category as a United Nations Special Agency, and is it not the invariable rule that immunity such as is proposed in this Order is given to
1470
all those serving in an international agency of this kind?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right; there are many precedents for this, several of which we have accepted in this House in recent weeks. The only difference between this and other precedents is that the immunity is rather more limited in this case than in some of the others.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say when the reports of the Council of Europe Legal Committee is likely to be complete in this matter?
LORD BESWICK: I understand, in the autumn, but I should like notice of the question. I will write to the noble Earl on this point.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT ON MOTORWAYS) REGULATIONS 1966
3.49 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, for the convenience of the House, and with your Lordships' permission, perhaps I can take together the two sets of Regulations standing upon the Order Paper in my name. I beg to move, That the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Motorways) Regulations 1966 and the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 1966 be approved.
Maximum speed limits for specified classes of vehicles were set out in the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act 1960. Under Section 24 of the Act, the Minister of Transport may, by Regulations subject to the approval of each House of Parliament, vary these speed limits. The First Schedule to the Act was replaced by a new Schedule by means of the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations 1962, which sets out the limits currently applying to the specified classes of vehicles on roads generally. And under the identical power which Section 24 replaced, the Minister made the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit

1471
on Special Roads) Regulations 1959. This substituted a different speed limit Schedule for vehicles driven on special roads—that is, motorways—from that applicable to vehicles on roads generally. It imposed a limit only on vehicles drawing certain trailers and that limit was 40 m.p.h.
The effect of the first of the Regulations for which approval is now sought is to replace the 40 m.p.h. speed limit applicable to vehicles drawing trailers on motorways by a 50 m.p.h. limit when the vehicle drawing the trailer is a bus or coach with a public service vehicle licence granted under Section 127 of the Act of 1960. This new limit will allow the vehicles concerned to keep up more readily with the general flow of traffic; and the consequent reduction in the need for other vehicles to overtake them will benefit road safety. There are also strong economic reasons why the speed of buses and coaches should not be restricted any more than is essential on grounds of safety. Quick journeys are an important factor in making public transport attractive to the travelling public. With regard to safety, the licensing system for buses and coaches involves meticulous inspection which makes them among the safest vehicles on the roads. Their highly skilled drivers have to pass special driving tests. For these vehicles the increased speed limits are in keeping with improvements in their design and safety in recent years.
This increase in the speed limits for buses and coaches drawing trailers will be of benefit, in particular, to British European Airways. As your Lordships will have noticed, their coaches operating between West London Air Terminal and London (Heathrow) Airport are authorised to draw specially approved luggage trailers which have been designed and tested for high-speed travel.
The effect of the second of the Regulations, which is similar to the first, for which approval is now sought is to substitute a new paragraph 1 in the 1962 Schedule making the following changes in limits applying on roads generally: the speed limit for public service vehicles—that is, buses and coaches operating under a public service vehicle licence issued by the traffic commissioners—is raised from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h.; for
1472
the same vehicles when drawing a trailer the limit is increased from 30 m.p.h. to 40m.p.h.; and the limit for motor cars and dual purpose vehicles towing a glider trailer—that is, a trailer constructed solely for the purpose of carrying a glider or ancillary equipment—is raised from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. The increased limit for glider trailers drawn by motor cars or estate cars recognises that the design and construction of these trailers makes them every bit as safe for towing at 40 m.p.h. as other kinds of small trailers already permitted to travel at that speed. These trailers have a low centre of gravity and are more stable than many caravans.
My Lords, these increases in speed limits, while having due regard to the public safety generally, will, I believe, be of particular benefit to users of public transport, and I hope that the House can now approve these two sets of Regulations.
Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Motorways) Regulations, 1966, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for kindly explaining to the House the effect of these two Orders. I would say a word of welcome to them, especially for raising the speed limit on public service vehicles which, as the noble Lord said, are inspected to a very high standard of safety as regards their construction, their suspension and their brakes. Above all, as I am sure noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree, the drivers have a very high standard of skill. It is perfectly safe for them to go at more than 40 m.p.h.; indeed, it is very rare to find them going at that. If Parliament agrees to this Order, I hope the noble Lord will have this matter watched, to see whether, especially on motorways, the 50 m.p.h. speed limit may not in future be safely revised to an even higher figure. Personally, I welcome what I regard as a realistic approach to these speed limits, and I hope that when we come to discuss the 70 m.p.h. limit for private vehicles next week we shall have an equal sense of realism from noble Lords opposite.
There is one point which I should like to emphasise and ask a question on, and that is as regards trailers. I should like the noble Lord, if he will, to make it

1473
quite plain that the 50 m.p.h. speed limit for trailers is limited to the special close-coupled trailers which are hitched on behind and are licensed for public service vehicles. Of course, any other trailer travelling at 50 m.p.h. wobbles about most dangerously and would be a danger to traffic generally. With those comments, I have much pleasure in welcoming the Order.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I feel that I must strike a note of dissent on this continual increasing of speed limits. I would agree with what has been said about the skill of drivers and about the speed of the vehicles themselves. But one must remember that this speed has to be seen relative to other vehicles, and, especially on narrow roads, the difficulty and danger of passing is increased if there is a continual increase in the permitted speed limit. I have no doubt that this Order will be passed, but I hope that the Ministry will go very carefully on this question of the increase of speed limits. I hope, also, that they will give great attention to the habitual and widespread breaking of the law as regards speed limits. In addition, I hope that they will give some consideration to minimum speed limits, for I believe that accidents are caused as much by those who go too slow on roads as by those who go too fast.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him how these Regulations apply to foreign vehicles touring in this country, and whether those vehicles are subject to the same stringent supervision in regard to their condition and the conditions of work of their drivers?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that the welcome to these Regulations which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, gave from his great experience as a former Minister of Transport reflects the attitude of most Members of this House. We should bear in mind that it is not speed in itself which is dangerous, but the circumstances in which speed is used. As we spend many millions of pounds on these new motorways it would be folly to restrict vehicles on them to a speed far below the safe maximum, thus under-using that part of the national capital. The noble Lord,
1474
Lord Redmayne, made a point about foreign vehicles. I regret to say that I cannot answer that question. If the noble Lord wishes, I will send him a letter on the subject. I do know, however, that certain restrictions on the length of vehicles are waived in the case of foreign motor coaches coming to this country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMIT) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1966
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 1966, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DESIGNATION OF FIRST PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER
4.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place? The Statement is as follows:
"As the House is aware, the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill was given its First Reading on the 20th July, but, for reasons the House will understand the Bill cannot now make further progress before the Summer Recess. It is, however, the Government's firm intention to press ahead with this administrative reform, and to afford the necessary Parliamentary time for the Bill to pass through all its stages in both Houses by the end of the year.
"In view of this, and the great importance attached, both by the House and by many outside, to the earliest possible introduction of this improvement in our administrative procedures, it has been decided that the first Parliamentary Commissioner ought now to be designated. This will enable him to make as much progress as possible with the establishment of the necessary

1475
administrative arrangements and the staffing of his office before the Bill becomes law. The formal appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner, which will require the approval of Her Majesty The Queen, must, of course, await the passage of the Bill.
"I need hardly add that this decision in no way interferes with the freedom of Parliament to consider all the details of the proposed legislation in the normal way. But the choice of the Parliamentary Commissioner himself is we think a separate matter within the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and the advantages of an early appointment are clear.
"As the House is aware, our intention is that the Parliamentary Commissioner's should not be a judicial office but a characteristic Parliamentary institution, carrying a high degree of independence. The Commissioner will be an officer of this House, dealing with complaints transmitted to him by honourable Members and reporting back both to honourable Members individually, to the House as a whole and to whatever Select Committee the House may appoint. It is therefore of the greatest importance that the first holder of this office, who will inevitably play a special part in establishing the traditions of a new institution, should be someone who fully understands this House and its workings, and who at the same time will be immediately capable of working with Government Departments in the course of his investigations.
"I have reached the conclusion, and I am confident that my view will be shared by honourable Members generally, that the best possible appointment that can be made for this purpose is that of Sir Edmund Compton, the present Comptroller and Auditor General. I believe that he enjoys the confidence of this House in a high degree, and in particular I know that past and present members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts have a lively appreciation of his great efficiency, independence and complete loyalty to the service of the House. I am also most pleased to be able to inform the House that Her Majesty
1476
The Queen has graciously indicated her willingness to approve this appointment when the necessary legislation has been passed.
"We propose that Sir Edmund Compton should take up his appointment as Parliamentary Commissioner designate from the 1st September though he will not, of course, be able to receive or consider complaints until the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
"Until the legislation can be passed—when the intention is that he should be paid on the Consolidated Fund—his salary will be voted by Parliament.
"I commend these arrangements to the House."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be obliged to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for repeating this Statement; and I am sure that Sir Edmund Compton will be an excellent choice when, and if, the Bill receives the Royal Assent. But, my Lords, several questions, I think, arise. First, I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether this is not a most unusual procedure. It seems that we are being told that Sir Edmund has been designated as Parliamentary Commissioner, and will take up his appointment in September, before the Bill providing for his appointment has even been presented to this House. It seems, to say the least of it, to assume the assent of Parliament to the Bill. I do not know whether there are any precedents for this, but on the face of it it certainly seems to be treating Parliament rather as a rubber stamp.
Secondly, may I ask the noble and learned Lord what will be the relationship of the Parliamentary Commissioner to this House? In the Statement that he read out we were told that the Parliamentary Commissioner is to be an officer of another place, and is to be responsible to a Select Committee appointed by another place. But, my Lords, is your Lordships' House not a House of Parliament? Noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree with me that we get a number of letters and complaints from members of the public. What will our position be with regard to the Parliamentary Commissioner? It may be that

1477
this is a very difficult question for the noble and learned Lord to answer, but that is probably because it is extremely difficult to draft a Statement before a Bill has been discussed in either House of Parliament.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for repeating this Statement. I commend the appointment of Sir Edmund Compton, and I wish him well in his future task. I agree, however, that the procedure is somewhat unusual. May I ask the Lord Chancellor whether the proposed functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner will include dealing with complaints relating to local authorities, many of the complaints being of that nature, or whether they will be limited to dealing with complaints against Government Departments? Lastly, may I press the point that this House should be regarded as part of Parliament?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask a further question of the noble and learned Lord? For very many years this House has been a place where, on Wednesday afternoons, it was possible for any subject of the Crown who had a grievance to have it fully debated and examined by the Government. Is this new appointment going to take the place of the functions of this House in that regard?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as one of the original Life Peers on this side of the House, I feel compelled to add my voice to that of my noble Leader in his nicely worded protest at the treatment of Parliament in relation to this particular issue. This is not the first time, even in the space of only a couple of days, that a measure has been served up with sauce. But, joking apart, my Lords, it seems to me very odd, and it would be quite wrong for me not to say that I think so. After all, Peers are Members of Parliament, and, as my noble Leader has said, we do get numerous communications from members of the public. The other evening it was suggested on the other side of the House that Peers on that side were more in touch with the common people than Peers on this side of the House. I do not for a moment think that is so, and I feel that I must add my voice to what
1478
my noble Leader has said in protesting at this extraordinary arrangement.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether Sir Edmund, for whom I have the greatest regard, will continue to be Comptroller and Auditor General? If so, he will then have three jobs. He is in charge of the budget of the Church Assembly—a million pound task in which he is being always chivvied to try to keep expenses down. He is also in charge of Government spending, or is acting as a "long-stop" on Government spending, which looks to me as if it is going to amount to about £10,000 million a year, with an increased number of civil servants—and, naturally, the more civil servants there are, and the greater the money spent, the larger the opportunity for error. Now, in addition, he is to have this job. How can one man discharge these three functions?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, perhaps I might recall to the House a passage regarding Statements which appears in The Companion to the Standing Orders, and which reads as follows:
"Questions for clarification may be asked upon such statements, but they should not be made the occasion for immediate debate unless the House so order".
I am not aware that the House has so ordered, and I venture to think that possibly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may wish to reply to the questions which have been put by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and others.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, may I put just one point to the noble and learned Lord? I did not gather from him why there was any particular hurry for this legislation to come forward, and why there was any need for this to proceed straight away, without any notice whatever.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think it would be quite unfair to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor any questions regarding the powers of this official after the legislation has gone through, because neither this House nor the other House has the slightest idea of the answer to those questions. I think I am right in saying that there has been only a First Reading

1479
in another place. While, of course, I do not expect the Lord Chancellor to answer any question regarding the powers, I share the doubts expressed about whether this very able official is really benefited by being appointed in advance of the debate on this Bill, even by another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for their reception of the name of Sir Edmund Compton; I am glad to know that they consider him such an excellent choice. Then the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked whether this was not an unusual procedure. Well, I am afraid that I am not very well versed in the precedents. I do not know whether this is usually done so openly; but this Government is sometimes accused of doing things in a great hurry and without sufficient preparation. Of course, if one is to start a new organisation, people have to be found, arrangements may or may not have to be made to give notice that may then be served, and premises and staff must be found.
Your Lordships may remember that the Law Commission Bill which started in this House was a case in which it was well known (and the names were stated in this House) whom I proposed to appoint as Commissioners if the Bill were enacted. Obviously, that could not have happened if they had not been approached. But the fact is that within twenty-four hours of the Royal Assent being given to the Bill the Law Commissioners were appointed, and found waiting for them both offices and a staff. Whether I should have had to pay for that out of my own pocket if the Bill had not become law, I do not know; I was prepared to do so if necessary. Otherwise, we should have started the Law Commission at least six months later; because somebody had to give six months' notice to his employer. Here the provision is being made quite openly.
I am asked what is the hurry. I think the reason is simply this. Here is a measure which, I think, has been generally welcomed, not only by all Parties but by the general public. It was in the 1964 Election Manifesto. If my recollection is right, it was in the Queen's Speech in that year; but, owing to the Dissolution, it could not be taken in the
1480
lifetime of the last Government; and so far this Session we have been particularly pressed. But it is something that the general public want. That is the reason why this has been done.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, it is not proposed that complaints against local authorities shall be included. The Bill has been published. There is a Schedule which contains a list of all the Government Departments who must be covered and a provision whereby by an Order the Schedule can be enlarged. It is possible that it may later be considerably enlarged. Your Lordships will be aware that this is the first time that there has been an Ombudsman in a country with a population of a size anything like this. We must prevent him from being overwhelmed to start with.
I have been asked: Why the House of Commons? These are no doubt provisions which your Lordships will consider when the Bill comes before you. As proposed in the Bill—and there was a White Paper in October of last year—complaints will reach him through Members of the House of Commons and he will make a report to a Select Committee of that House. I am afraid I cannot answer Lord Hawke's question, although I should have thought that this was a whole-time appointment; but I have not made inquiries about that and it is only a matter of opinion that I can express.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether the justification for the hurry for the appointment of the Ombudsman is not to protect Parliament against the Executive?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is indeed so. This is looked on as an extension of the power of Members, particularly of another place, against the Executive; and it is very proper that it should be so. As your Lordships know, a Labour Government always introduces special legislation—whether it be the Crown Proceedings Act or otherwise—to safeguard the independence of the ordinary individual.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord confirm that in the Statement it is the intention that the

1481
present Comptroller and Auditor General should combine those two duties with the duty of Ombudsman?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I do not know the answer to that question. I expressed a purely personal opinion that the Ombudsman should be a whole-time job.

LICENSING (CERTIFICATES IN SUSPENSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.16 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Archibald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Abolition of certificates in suspense]:
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert "Subject to subsection (2) of this section,". The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 standing in my name, I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I take the whole group of Amendments together because they have a single purpose. They form the proposal to amend the Bill of which I gave notice at Second Reading. The purpose of the Amendments is to remove an inequity between one certificate holder and another to which our attention has been drawn by the Glasgow District Licensed Trade Defence Association. There are two events involved in the issue of a certificate in suspense following compulsory acquisition of the premises. There is the compulsory acquisition and there is then the discontinuance of business resulting there from. Where, for example, the local authority does not immediately require the whole of the block of premises that it has acquired for development, there may be quite a long interval between these two events and the business continues in operation in premises acquired by the local authority. Where the premises were acquired and business discontinued before the Bill becomes an Act, the compulsory acquisition com-
1482
pensation will have taken into account the certificate holder's right to a certificate in suspense and he will be able to exercise that right for what it may be worth. Where the premises are acquired after this Bill becomes an act the certificate holder will have no right to a certificate in suspense; so no account need be taken of any such right in assessing compensation.
The inequity occurs, as the Bill is at present drafted, in the case where assessment has already been made, or is being made, on the assumption of a right to a certificate in suspense but, because the business will still be carrying on when the Bill becomes law, that right will disappear before it can be exercised. It seems only fair that if compensation took into account that right the certificate holder should be able to exercise it. I must confess there is a difficulty here. If the Committee decides, as I hope it will, to make this Amendment to the Bill it will add some months to the time the Bill will take to become law since Private Members' time must be found in another place to consider Amendments made by your Lordships' House in Committee.
If we preserved the right to a certificate of everyone whose premises were compulsorily acquired before the Bill became an Act, we should be adding a not inconsiderable number to the certificates in suspense which would be in existence during the five-year period under Clause 1(2). I have had a suggestion put to me which would avoid this difficulty; it is to insert to-day's date in the Amendment. The effect of this is that any certificate holder whose premises were compulsorily acquired on or before this date, and whose assessment for compensation will take account of his right to a certificate in suspense, will still have a right to a certificate in suspense. But anyone whose premises are compulsorily acquired after to-day's date will not have a right to a certificate in suspense, once the Bill becomes an Act, and for any assessment for compensation which the valuers of the Inland Revenue Department make, whether in the next few months or after the Act comes into force, they will, I am assured, be able to take this fact into account.
Since I am now touching on the complex field of compulsory acquisition the Amendments may seem a little mysterious

1483
to your Lordships. I hope that your Lordships will not press me with questions about this aspect of the Amendments, for I must admit that I should very soon be out of my depth. But I can say two things to your Lordships. The first is that the Amendments refer to the time of service of the notice to treat, because that is the critical point of time for the assessment of compensation for compulsory acquisition. The amount of compensation is assessed in the light of all the circumstances at the time of notice to treat, and it is therefore thought appropriate that this date should apply to that stage of the proceedings. The second point that I have to make is that I have sought expert advice and have been advised that these Amendments will have the effect that I have described to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2) of this section,").—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am bound to say that I find some difficulty in understanding the proposition put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. If I understand the noble Lord aright, he is saying that if he makes a manuscript addition—is this so?—to this Amendment he is now moving, one set of circumstances will follow; but if he inserts the date, he has a proposition. What is the proposition?
LORD ARCHIBALD: The date is printed in the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I see, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I thought he was making a fresh proposition over and above what is here.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("sections 88(1) and") and insert ("section 88(1) and, subject as aforesaid, the said section").—(Lord Archibald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("() Where a notice to treat has been served or has, by virtue of paragraph 1(1)
1484
of Schedule 6 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1945, been deemed to have been served on any person in respect of the compulsory acquisition of licensed premises on or before the 4th day of August 1966, nothing in the foregoing subsection shall preclude the Commissioners of Customs and Excise from giving a certificate under section 96(1) of the principal Act for the suspension of the certificate for the sale by retail of exciseable liquor granted in respect of those premises.").—(Lord Archibald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, after ("Act") insert ("or which becomes suspended under the said section 96 by virtue of subsection (2) of this section").—(Lord Archibald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BILL
4.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rhodes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clause 4:
Hired assets
4.—(1)
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board may make to any person carrying on a business in Great Britain of hiring out any asset mentioned in subsection (1) of this section a grant towards approved capital expenditure incurred by that person in providing for the purposes of that business a new asset such as is mentioned in that subsection, but such a grant shall be made only—
(b) in the case of machinery or plant, if it is provided for the purpose of being hired out for use in Great Britain for carrying on any process for or incidental to the purpose mentioned in section 1(2)(e) of this Act.
LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (2)(b), after "section 1(2)(e)" to

1485
insert "or 1(2)(f)". The noble Lord said: This I would regard as being in the nature of a consequential Amendment on Amendment No. 7, accepted by your Lordships on Tuesday, which enabled grants to be extended to forestry. The effect of this Amendment would be to enable grants to be made to persons carrying on the business of hiring for the acquisition of plant and machinery to hire to other persons, provided that those other persons were otherwise eligible. The effect of subsection (2)(b) is to enable these hirings to be made even if those other persons are not eligible. So the difference between having this Amendment and not having it is, in effect, to make quite clear that the hiring could be done to the Forestry Commission.
I am bound to say that I had in mind that possibly it would be the intention of the Government, in view of their general policy, to include the Forestry Commission in Schedule 2. This would bring the Commission into line with the other bodies excepted there. If that were done it would enable grants to be made to the Forestry Commission in the same way as hiring grants can be made to local authorities. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government. If it is not, I conceive that the Forestry Commission would be able to hire plant from someone who was in the business of hiring, and that that person would still be able, even if we did not have this Amendment, to get the grants. I should be obliged if the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, would make this clear. I am not certain whether this Amendment is necessary. It would be necessary if, as I anticipated, the Commission were included in Schedule 2. If it is not included, I doubt whether it would be because I doubt whether local authorities would ever engage in forestry activities.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, after ("section 1(2)(e)") insert ("or 1(2)(f)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): It is hard to resist the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who knows his subject as well as anyone in the House. What he proposes to do by this Amendment is to put in an additional qualifying industrial
1486
process. What interpretation may come after I am not prepared to say, because in any event we do not want this Amendment in and we are objecting to it. Fundamentally, we do not believe that the extraction of forestry products is a qualifying industrial process. It is true that this is a consequential Amendment to the debate we had the other day on whether to include timber extraction, when, as the noble Lord remembers, the Government were defeated. In that connection the "Backwoodsmen" were brought in to pass the Amendment. Today we do not want this consequential Amendment, and, without going through the painful repetition of the answer I gave the other day, I would ask the Committee to reject it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should have liked to accept what the noble Lord has said about our creating another qualifying process, but that point has already gone into the Bill. What we are now concerned with is the small point of whether, if the Forestry Commission hire plant and machinery from a person who is in the business of hiring plant and machinery, that person will get the grant. As I understand it, that person would not get a grant for such hire if the Forestry Commission were added to Schedule 2. Surely it is reasonable to ask the noble Lord to explain what the effect of the Amendment would be. It really is not fair to the Committee for the noble Lord to ask us to reject the Amendment when he does not assign a reason or give the effects. I must ask him to do that.
LORD RHODES: May I say to the noble Lord that I do not regard what I said in my answer as unfair to the Committee. This is an Amendment consequential on one that was passed the other day. We do not want this Amendment. If the noble Lord wants an answer to something which may crop up on the next Amendment on the leasing of equipment, let me say that I am quite prepared to give him an answer on who gets grants in the case of equipment being hired, but that is as far as I am prepared to go.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall be agreed to?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope that the noble Lord will be a little more forthcoming in this case than he was in the

1487
last, otherwise I am afraid that we shall not make very good progress. Subsection (2) of this clause provides that a grant may be made to a person acquiring a new asset for the purpose of hiring it out only if, first, he carries on the business of hiring in Great Britain; secondly, the asset has been hired out to another person and, thirdly, it is something on which that other person could have got grant if he had provided it for himself. I may say now that it was quite unnecessary to press the last Amendment because, as the Forestry Commission is not included in the Schedule, it would make very little difference—it would make only a marginal difference, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well. He was really inviting us to make fools of ourselves, but we do not "buy" that so easily.
Paragraph (b) introduces an exception to paragraph (a) by providing that if a new asset is acquired for the construction industry, grant may be given in respect of machinery and plant provided for the purpose of being hired out, whether or not it is in fact hired out to anybody, and whether the persons who hire it are eligible for grant. We know that the Board of Trade would not give grant unless it was hired out, and I am not quite certain why this clause has been drafted in this way. But the reason for this distinction is that much of the hiring in the construction industry is made to local authorities, and local authorities are not eligible for the grant. This emerged in the debates in another place.
The reason why I have not moved Amendment No. 23 is that I understand that in the construction industry the hiring of machinery and plant is often made for periods of less than six months and the Government are consulting with the industry on the whole subject of hiring. There are three questions I want to ask the noble Lord. First, can he inform the Committee of the results of these consultations? Have the Government decided on the minimum period of hiring that will qualify for grant in the construction industry, if indeed there is to be a minimum period laid down in general by the Board of Trade for the industry?
Secondly, do the Government still adhere to the policy announced by the
1488
President of the Board of Trade in another place, that for hirings in all other cases machinery and plant covered by this clause will not qualify for grant unless hired out for at least three months, and despite the changes made in the Report stage in another place? Thirdly, bearing in mind that in another place the Government resisted an Amendment similar to Amendment No. 23 on the ground that a fixed period of six months might be too long in some cases (although it is said that three years is to be the normal period), can the noble Lord say what would be the absolute minimum period the Government would regard as sufficient to qualify for grant in industries other than the construction industry? He must have some period in mind.
I recognise the noble Lord's difficulty in the last case, but I hope that in the present case he will be able to give some information, because I am sure that it will be useful for everybody who is either likely to take advantage of grants as a hirer, or as likely to hire, and would hope to get hirings at the lowest possible rate because of grant coming in.
LORD RHODES: I am delighted to be able to reply. The circumstances are as the noble Lord has read out. As everybody knows, the custom of hiring out equipment of all kinds has grown up considerably during the last few years. Hire-purchase and loans of all sorts have encouraged the leasing of equipment. It happens in many industries, and more often than not in the contruction industry. Taking the noble Lord's first question, talks with the construction industry are still proceeding. They are bound to proceed throughout the whole time this Bill is in the form in which it is. But may I say that I should regard a minimum period as a very short one? It is quite possible for a hiring firm, or a lessor (as it is called in the Bill), to hire out a piece of equipment for a fortnight, and the grant is on the basis of the new piece of equipment loaned to a lessee, who does not get any grant but who qualifies under Clause 1(2), as a qualified processor. In the case of the building and construction industry a lessor can get the grant of20 per cent. if he loans out a piece of equipment to a lessee for less than the three years mentioned in the course of the discussion on the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Does the noble Lord mean even it it is less?
LORD RHODES: Yes; even if it is less. If apiece of equipment for the construction industry was leased for three years in a development area this would qualify for 40 per cent. grant; if it is for less than that, it would he a 20 per cent. grant, and, of course, there will be flexible rules about whether the machine is handed on or loaned to somebody else with a qualifying process after the first one. That is as far as I can go, because it will have to be dealt with as the situation arises. But your Lordships can be quite certain that this is agreed; although it was brought in at a late stage, it is acceptable.
The next question was whether we stick to the rule, which the noble Lord says was enunciated in another place, about the three years. I must draw the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that we have always admitted that it will be possible to hire out, for instance, computers for a shorter period. So we have the two main elements in this. But the noble Lord asked about the (shall I call it?) more fixed type of asset—machinery and such things—leased to somebody in an industrial process. If the lessor on leasing a piece of equipment gets a 40 per cent. grant because the machinery is leased to somebody in a development area, it will have to be for three years.
The noble Lord can see the sense of this. Suppose a piece of machinery got the 40 per cent, grant and was then leased to someone in the development area, if we had not got an administrative rule of a reasonable length of time—three years—what could happen? They could get the 40 per cent. grant, and they might then lease the machine into a non-development area, and the whole idea of discriminating and helping industry in a particular area would be thwarted. I hope that that answers the second question.
The third question was related to the one I have just dealt with. Apart from the two I have mentioned—computers and construction—we regard the rule about three years as a valid one. I think what I said in reply to the second question answers the third, and I hope that is is satisfactory to the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am bound to say that, while I quite appreciate the desirability of having some kind of rule, in so far as the development areas are concerned I should have thought that as a general rule in the case of the 20 per cent. grant three years was much too long. I should have thought that it would be better to have an administrative rule of much less than this. I feel sure that the Board of Trade will be bound to relax this intention considerably as time goes on, because I think they will find, in practice, that they are not getting the results that they hope for if they impose such a long period.
It was stated in another place that the Board of Trade would keep pretty close tabs on all the hiring, and would know where the machinery was going to at any given time, and that this would be a condition. If that is so, I should not have thought that the condition of three years for a 40 per cent. grant was as necessary as all that. I should have thought that a six months' period would have been much better. I quite see—and this is why I did not move the Amendment—that one does not want to have too much flexibility in the rules laid down, but, by the same token, I hope that the Board of Trade will not introduce a rather inflexible rule at a very high level along the lines that the President originally suggested. I rather gather from the noble Lord in replying that the Board of Trade intended to be more flexible than the President indicated when he first made this announcement. In the circumstances, I do not propose to put this Amendment down again at the next stage, but I would strongly urge the Government not to be too inflexible or to impose a high period for hiring to qualify.
LORD RHODES: While making it quite clear that I do not accept that there is any difference between what the President of the Board of Trade said and what I have said now, I would say to the noble Lord that in all its aspects this is only an administrative rule, anyway, and we have the powers to alter it. What he says will be taken note of, and I hope that we can now go on to the next Amendment.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
5.—
Ships.
(3) No grant shall be made under this section in respect of a ship, or of the provision of a part for a ship, which—
(b) is of less than one hundred tons gross tonnage or is not self-propelled;
4.49 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE LORD ERROLL OF HALE moved, in subsection (3)(b), to leave out "or is not self-propelled". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, and it might be convenient for your Lordships if we consider at the same time Amendment No. 42. Clause 5 deals with ships, and in subsection (3) it is specified that no grant shall be paid if a ship is of less than 100 tons gross tonnage or is not self-propelled. My Amendment seeks to delete the phrase "or is not self-propelled", so that marine craft which have no engines may qualify for grant.
In order to help the Committee, I have specified in Amendment No. 42, which deals with definitions, the type of marine craft which I suggest ought to qualify. Naturally, I do not think that rowing boats, small barges or the like should qualify, but there is a distinct class of marine craft which, I should like to suggest to the Committee, should certainly qualify. They include such items as hopper barges, which are often of very large size, and are essential for use in connection with harbour improvement schemes and the disposal of waste material in various parts of the oceans. Floating cranes can be used either for the repair of ships or, what is of particular importance in the docks, for lifting and lowering heavy specialised items of cargo.
Dredgers may be self-propelled, but there are certain types which are not, and it would seem invidious to draw a distinction between the two types of dredger just because one had an engine and one had not. Since the self-propelled dredger would normally qualify for grant, it might be worth while putting an engine—it need be only a small one—into the non-self-propelled dredger in order to get the 20 per cent. grant, thus making the dredger cheaper for the user than it would otherwise be.
The earlier Paper refers to dry docks. That was a misprint on my part. I meant floating docks, and I suggest that they are an important marine asset which should qualify for grant. Since I have not tried to make the list conclusive, I have suggested in Amendment No. 42 that other waterborne craft might qualify as might be specified from time to time by the Board of Trade. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, leave out from ("tonnage") to end of line 29.—(Lord Erroll of Hale.)
LORD SHEPHERD: As I have said on quite a number of occasions, the purpose of this Bill is to give special assistance to the manufacturing and extractive industries, since they are the industries which will have the biggest impact upon our export effort and also upon our import saving. However, we decided to include ships in Clause 5 because our maritime fleet plays a major part in balancing our payments by overseas earnings. Therefore, we thought it right that we should give this specific encouragement for the building of new ships and also, as in Clause 1, for the repair, conversion, maintenance and refitting of a ship; but we thought it right that there should be some exclusions, and these are contained in subsection (3).
It is paragraph (b) we are concerned about, in that there should be an exclusion of vessels of less than 100 tons gross tonnage. The reason for this is that we wanted to give special assistance to the overseas travelling ships, and to exclude what you might call the internal transport system, because this would be in conflict with road, rail or air, which do not receive assistance from the Bill. Therefore, we thought that 100 tons was a fair arbitrary figure, and about the right figure, for that type of exclusion.
The words, "or is not self-propelled" were brought in to indicate clearly that it would be a ship; that it would be operating in a basic transport service. The noble Lord is asking to delete the words, "or is not self-propelled". It is quite clear that certain barges and certain harbour craft could become eligible, but I hope the noble Lord will agree with me, when I deal with those vessels that come within that category but which, I believe, are already covered by this Bill or by other legislation, that the vessels he

1493
might have in mind which provide a transport service should not be included for incentive grants on the basis that we do not want these services covered in the Bill.
In the case of those vessels—if I may use the phrase—such as floating cranes and floating docks, they may well be for harbour improvement. If they are, then they will come within the Harbours Act 1964. But if they are part of ship repairing, conversion or maintenance—and here one thinks particularly of a floating dock—they will come within Clause 1(2) and they will get the grant. Here perhaps we have in mind hopper barges for the dredging and removal of what has been dredged, and the dredgers themselves, and if they are within a harbour improvement they will get the grant under the Harbours Act. If an industrial organisation was forced to use some water transport internally, such as a barge, again it would receive a grant.
I would suggest to the noble Lord that if the craft he has in mind—at least those specified in his Amendment—come within the terms of assistance or are incidental to manufacturing process, or play a part in harbour operations, they are all covered either by this legislation or the Harbours Act. But we have specifically excluded other forms of water transport which are purely and simply internal transport services. I hope that with those few words the noble Lord will see that there is little need, if any, for his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Could I clear up one point in this subsection? I am not sure that we do not get into deep water over part of a ship which is of less than 100 tons gross tonnage. When you start repairing ships, I understand that you will be able to get allowances, but how do you measure the repaired portion exactly to make sure whether it is under or over 100 tons? If you put a bit on to a ship which you can calculate as 101 tons, presumably you will get the allowance. On the other hand, if the bit you mend it with is 99 tons, you do not get the allowance. I think there is rather deep water somewhere here.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am the last to enter into deep water, and here I speak subject to correction. I have no previous knowledge of the point the noble Lord
1494
has made. I think what he has in mind is that you may be building a new bow of a ship to attach it to an existing hull. In my view, that is conversion. That is what I should have thought it would be. If it is conversion, then it would come under Clause 1(2). I should not have thought, therefore, that it would come within the ambit of the clause. If you look at subsection (1) in particular you find it refers to the providing of a new ship for use. Here I do not think you would build a new ship; you would just build the bow. If you build a special bow, it would be for attachment to an existing hull. I speak with some care in this matter, but that is my own view. If later on this evening I am corrected by my officials, who no doubt are beginning to quake, I will get in touch with the noble Lord. But I think the point he has made is dealt with by the word "conversion".
LORD ERROLL of HALE: I do not think the noble Lord will get away with it as easily as that, because a part of a ship could be the propulsion unit—the engines. These are quite often purchased separately from the ship by the owners-to-be and are issued to the builder of the hull for insertion into the hull. I will leave the matter there.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord is not going to be allowed to leave the matter there. I am quite sure as the noble Lord was going on he was getting into deeper water than I was. If he would read the clause he would find we are referring to a new ship, not to a part of a ship. If you are seeking a grant for the propulsion units, in my view these would be new propulsion units for an existing ship, and that would be covered by paragraph (b) of subsection (3). I think the noble Lord is getting into deep water but I will not push him right in.
LORD HAWKE: I am not sure that either of us made the point absolutely clear. Where I think the drafting may have gone wrong is in the question of the 100 tons. Is that intended to qualify the part of the ship or the ship itself? That is the point that needs elucidation.
LORD SHEPHERD: Will the noble Lord read with me subsection (1) of Clause 5, which says:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board may make to any person carrying on

1495
a business in Great Britain a grant towards approved capital expenditure incurred by that person in providing a new ship for use, whether or not in Great Britain, for the purposes of that business or in converting a ship for such use."
I think that is sufficient. The "100 tons" is included so that the grants will be made for these purposes for the ships which in our view will be those which will be sailing overseas and which will give us increased income and help to balance the balance of payments. We are trying to exclude ships which are primarily used for internal services and which would be in competition with other forms of transport which do not receive the grant under this Bill.
LORD HAWKE: I do not quarrel with what the noble Lord is trying to do, but I am not certain that the Bill would be interpreted by the courts in that way. Frequently Governments try to do things in Bills and the judges rule that they have not done them. I think the 100 tons should be said to qualify the part rather than the ship itself, and perhaps the noble Lord will look at it again before the next stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is a lawyer, and neither am I, but I will see that this is referred to the highest legal authority in the Board of Trade—not the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes—and I will see whether I can give an assurance on this point between now and Monday next.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: I am sure my noble friend Lord Hawke is grateful for this undertaking by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I, for my part, would like to thank him for his lucid explanation of the background to my Amendments, in view of which I see no reason to press them. Therefore I have pleasure in withdrawing this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mining works.
6.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board may make to any person carrying on a business in Great Britain a grant towards approved capital expenditure incurred by that person in providing works in Great Britain for use for the carrying on in the course of that business of any process for or incidental to
1496
the searching for, or the extracting or getting of, coal, oil or other minerals, brine, peat or natural gas.
5.6 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALEmoved to add to subsection (1): "and sand, gravel, slate, marble, stone and granite". The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the meaning of the word "mineral". Since it is regarded as necessary to insert in that line "coal, oil or other minerals", because coal and oil are both minerals, it seems therefore to be necessary to specify other materials which may or may not be minerals in order to ensure that they are not left out by reason of the fact that two items which are minerals are nevertheless specified. It would have been much simpler if the Government had accepted my Amendment and had eliminated "coal, oil or other minerals" and merely referred to "minerals", which are clearly definable. But I suppose "coal "was put in to satisfy the miners' lobby in another place, and "oil" was put in because a lot of people were in doubt whether oil was a mineral; but it is a most unsatisfactory way of drafting. If we are going to do it in the way I deplore, I suggest we make a thorough job of it and include "sand, gravel, slate, marble, stone and granite"; nearly all of which have substantial lobbies in different parts of the country who would no doubt be grateful for a mention in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, at end insert ("and sand, gravel, slate, marble, stone and granite").—(Lord Erroll of Hale.)
LORD RHODES: The noble Lord has omitted "Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all"; that is about the only thing he has not mentioned.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: It is not a mineral.
LORD RHODES: We had a debate on this the other night and I said it was not perhaps strictly necessary to put in the words "coal and oil", but it was done for an administrative reason. When you think about the number of qualifying processes and the things that could qualify under this particular Amendment, it would need a list as long as your arm to name them all, and it could cause a tremendous lot

1497
of difficulty and investigation and telephoning and writing to the Board of Trade. There are quite a number of things that are known which the noble Lord has not mentioned—china clay, for one thing, or the water got from the ground for a private enterprise authority. I think in the circumstances it is better to leave the wording as it is, knowing that in this comprehensive language all qualifying items are identifiably known, and also leaving room for things that may not be known or discovered at the time. Who would have thought, perhaps ten years ago, of the three last words in subsection (1) "or natural gas"? These things alter from time to time, and I think the noble Lord will agree that this point is not of sufficient importance to pursue very far. I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Could the noble Lord assure us that all these things are included in minerals, and also salt? I suspect that technically salt is a mineral, but it would be as well to have the matter clarified.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, could say "Yes" to the noble Duke's question in a sufficiently loud voice for the Hansard reporter to hear it? Are all the items within my Amendment minerals within the meaning of this clause?
LORD RHODES: Yes, of course. That is what I conveyed last Tuesday.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: Although we did not discuss this Amendment last Tuesday, as I had not then put it down, I will withdraw it now, in view of the assurance the noble Lord is giving.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Power to vary rates of grant and add further assets eligible for grant
7.—(1) The Board may by an order made with the consent of the Treasury—
(b) make provision for the making of grants under this Part of this Act, at such rates as may be specified in the order, in respect of assets of any class or description, being assets of a class or description not eligible for grant under any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act.
5.10 p.m.
LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved, in subsection (1), after "Treasury—"to insert:
"() make provision for the making of a grant under sections 1, 2, 4 or 6 of this Act amounting to thirty per cent. of the expenditure in respect of which it is made (not being expenditure which qualifies as development area expenditure in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Act) if the Boards are satisfied that the expenditure relates to assets or works which will be used or provided (as the case may be) in an area specified in the Order for the purpose of this paragraph;".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I do not know if it has any significance, but I notice that of the 53 Amendments to this Bill, 52 of them have been submitted by Members on the opposite Benches. I am not claiming in any way that the one remaining, which I am now about to move, is of equal importance to the whole of the other 52, but I regard it as of a great deal of importance. This Amendment is consequential on the remarks I tried to make on the Second Reading, but as certain noble Lords have not had the tremendous advantage of hearing my Second Reading speech, perhaps I may just recapitulate very briefly.
I am concerned about certain areas that have come to be known as the grey areas, those which are not certified in a normal sense as in need of industrial development. I am thinking, in the main, of areas such as North-East Lancashire, the Rossendale Valley, the area around Wigan and Leigh. But it does not apply only to Lancashire: there are parts of the North-East and the West country, and other parts of the United Kingdom which are equally in these grey areas. The result is that they have never had the opportunity of getting the advantage of grants of this character which have been awarded to areas which are now to be called industrial development areas. As a result, they have been in the nasty position of having hundreds—that is not an exaggeration—of derelict factories. They have suffered very severely from depopulation, and from declining industries (and particularly I would mention coal and cotton) and there is great need on their part for renewal of industries and revitalisation.
I submit to your Lordships, and to my noble friend, that a 20 per cent. grant is quite insufficient for this type

1499
of area in such a state of need. I was greatly encouraged, so far as these areas are concerned, when I read subsection (3) of Clause 15, and perhaps your Lordships would pardon me if I read it, for the Record. It says:
"The areas to be specified by the Board under subsection (2) of this section shall be those parts of Great Britain where, in the opinion of the Board, special measures are necessary to encourage the growth and proper distribution of industry; and in exercising their powers under that subsection the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances actual and expected, including the state of employment and unemployment, population changes, migration and the objectives of regional policies."
In the past, the criterion seems always to have been unemployment, and when I read that subsection I was encouraged to feel that there might be a great deal of sympathy extended to these areas, which are not suffering from unemployment but are suffering in the ways that I have tried to indicate.
When, on Second Reading, I put this point to my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I am afraid that he gave me little hope that there would be an extension of the development areas to include many of those that I have in mind. I noticed the other day that in the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade he said that greater priority would be given than ever before, so far as the black areas are concerned. This gave me a little concern, because it seems that the areas I have in mind are going to be pushed further back and have little chance. Therefore, I am suggesting an alternative. As I have said, I did mention it in the course of my remarks on Second Reading, when I felt that my noble friends were not encouraging me a great deal. The alternative scheme is that, instead of having 20 per cent. grants in the non-development areas and 40 per cent. grants in the case of the development areas, there should be a new grant of 30 per cent. to meet the necessity and the difficulties of these particular districts.
My Amendment, your Lordships will notice, deals with the application of Clause 1 (Machinery and Plant), Clause 2 (Computers), Clause 4 (Hired Assets), and Clause 6 (Mining Works). I have put nothing else into the Amendment at all, and in that respect I feel that I have
1500
an advantage over some of the Amendments moved in the course of the Committee stage, which have departed from the principle of the Bill; that is, machinery and extraction. I feel that by sticking to those four points I stick to the principles of the Bill, and I am not asking the Government to depart from the principles which they have enunciated.
I would say one other thing. My noble friend Lord Shepherd in winding up on Second Reading, referred me to the Local Government Bill, which I understand is now on the stocks in another place, and he said that in the Local Government Bill might be the answer to the problem I have tried to state. That gave me some hope, but I would point out that in the Local Government Bill, as at present written, there are no specific percentages mentioned for development and redevelopment. It merely proposes a maximum grant of 50 per cent. for things like open spaces and reclamation of derelict land, but does not suggest a very generous or ungenerous grant in the case of development and redevelopment. Therefore, I thought it fit to put this Amendment on the Order Paper, to see whether the Government cannot think again and give some relief to these areas. We are now calling the development areas "black"; other areas of the country, like the South-East, are regarded as "white "areas. My plea this afternoon is for the "grey" areas, and I hope that something may be done and that I may receive some assurance from my noble friend in regard to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6,line 26, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Royle.)
5.20 p.m.
LORD RHODES: I am glad to be able to reply to this Amendment. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the purpose of this Bill is to alter the criterion. We have altered it. We do not tie it to employment in its entirety when we are considering which part of the country should have development area status. I am glad to reply to the Amendment as well, because the noble Lord comes from the same part of the country as I. He knows the circumstances and the way in which the Industrial Revolution has in many places

1501
left its mark and scars, and other things that have gone with it.
We who were Members of another place and come from these "grey" areas know full well the implications. We know some of the reasons why there is migration from these areas. I can remember well once opening an Election campaign in one part of an area, and I was directing the attention of the occupants of back-to-back houses to the squalor in which they were living. Within half an hour I went away with a "flea in my ear". They were proud people, proud of what they had got. Once I had realised that, as did the noble Lord in another constituency not far away, I started getting on with the folks on the spot. Things emerged which caused him and me anguish as Members of Parliament. For instance, young people were leaving the area for a quite simple reason, because of the facilities that they had in terms of housing. People said, "It is difficult if our Joe wants to bring back a girl he has met at Black-pool, because we have to go all the way round the block to get at the clottie." These are not things which can be treated lightly.
I will come in a few moments to the, shall I say, rejuvenation or re-emergence of the determination of a number of these places to put themselves on the map in their own way. The noble Lord has mentioned Rossendale. Years ago I went to Rossendale to locate a mill which belonged to a firm, David Whitehead. I stopped in a street in Rossendale and asked a local where it was. He went into a tremendous amount of explanation as to where it was, and then at the end said, "You know, I don't think I would start from here if I were you." But it was difficult not to start from there, because I was there. So with a lot of these places; they cannot opt out. They have the mills of old; they have the new mills—they have all sorts of mills, and I put them in this kind of category. Any mills that have been built in this century are reasonable; they are able to be converted as so many cotton mills that were built in the first decade of this century have been able to be converted and adapted to many uses. There are not many mills available now that have been built in this century. Then you had the mills, which
1502
are perhaps not up to standard now, and which were built soon after the coming of the joint stock banks, when the machinery was available and the processes were speeded up for the making of cotton in many of these areas. But, before them, we still have numbers of these buildings which are not fit for anybody to work in. I take it that these are the buildings that my noble friend has so truly drawn attention to. Believe me, his remarks ring true; they were like a good bell. This matter will be taken notice of by those higher up than myself.
Before I conclude, I want just to put one or two answers to my noble friend. This is not the Bill to accomplish this kind of thing. We cannot make this Bill into what might be called an urban renewal Bill. Your Lordships see the additions that we have here, and the powers that we have to alter the development area boundaries. We have put these conditions in the Bill because we mean business at the first opportunity. This is not just a matter of considering the employment situation. What would be the situation if everything was right, if we did not realise that places like Rossendale were not unusual. Haslingdon Borough is in this district of Rossendale. Ramsbottom is in the district of Rossendale. They get a 40 per cent. rate assistance from the Government. Rawtenstall Borough gets 46 per cent. and Bacup Borough gets 50 per cent. That is the sort of assistance that the Government are providing under legislation which was introduced at the time that the noble Lord was a Minister.
We realise that there is an enormous amount to be done, but I must say that an enormous amount is being done. While there may be some reluctance to move to these places from desirable areas like the South and the South-East, I would say to this Committee and to those who are interested in setting up businesses in and moving to the North that a lot of these "grey" areas are now taking themselves in hand in a way which was inconceivable years ago. I have in my hand photographs of my old constituency as it was with its back-to-back houses, its derelict spaces and its slums. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but if anybody wants to look at them during this discussion so as to realise how the North is setting about the

1503
job of tidying itself up and making itself presentable, they will provide the answer. So many influences are being brought to bear in these days, for people are demanding higher standards and asking for amenities to be provided. Ordinary folk are taking an interest in what is going on. In our neighbourhood we have societies and other bodies engaging in these activities. Bodies such as the Civic Trust would not have been thought of only a few years ago but they now play their full part.
From an employment point of view, whereas up to now the criteria have been severe, Rossendale, as the noble Lord has said, is very favourably placed, because unemployment there has been running at about 1 per cent, and has been purely nominal. These words have not been put into the subsection for nothing. In the words of one of our officials at the Board of Trade which appear in my brief and which I thought were very human, "We shall watch that nobody gets behind." That is exactly what we intend to do.
LORD ROYLE: I am familiar with the great improvements which have been made in the areas mentioned, and I agree with the noble Lord completely. My difficulty has been that they have had no more Governmental help in these activities than very many better placed areas in the country, and have had to do so much on their own initiative. However, I feel strongly about the question, but I am not in the same position as noble Lords opposite who can divide the House without any worry at all. I am a loyal supporter of the Government and I am aware of the heavy programme in another place and in this place next week. I should not like from these Benches to cause further embarrassment to the Government, added to the embarrassment which has been caused to them by noble Lords opposite on other Amendments to this Bill. I am not completely happy on this matter, although what my noble friend has said encourages me tremendously. I am quite sure that when what he has said is read in many parts of the country it will encourage many thousands of people in these grey areas. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD REDMAYNE LORD REDMAYNE moved to add to subsection (1) (b):
"including in particular any assets which can be clearly shown to contribute to increased exports or a specific saving of imports,".
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 were discussed together. They are related points and are both relevant to the same part of the Bill. The first Amendment seeks to ensure that if the Board of Trade make grants for assets of a class or description not eligible for grant under any of the foregoing provisions—and that is a very wide power of the Board of Trade—they should pay particular attention to whether the assets concerned clearly contribute to increased exports or to a saving of imports. I think that this is sense. I accept that the Government, in their wisdom or, as I think, their un-wisdom, have wholly excluded distributive trades in all forms from the Bill, and it is no good arguing about that now. But it would be an act of grace for the Government if, in response to this Amendment—and I do not pretend that this is the sort of Amendment which could go into the Bill in these words—they would say that there could be in their minds cases of special argument where they would be prepared to accept that the overriding value of the proposition was such that it would enable them to make a grant, despite the fact that the assets were not part of a qualifying manufacturing process.
I will not waste time by trying to give all sorts of examples. One example comes easily to my mind, and that was given by the President of the Board of Trade when winding-up the first day of the economic debate in another place. He cited the expansion of the mail order export business as a new field in which there were practical possibilities. That is fine; but mail order is a distributive trade and cannot be anything else. Success in it depends, as does all retail trading, on a wide variety of goods attractively presented. If one were going to embark on export mail order in a big way, there is no question at all that the plant and organisation required for it would be considerable. Packing equipment, machinery for the production of catalogues, machinery for mailing and so

1505
forth, even a computer, would be necessary. If the President of the Board of Trade talks about the practical possibilties of expansion of exports through mail order, it seems a little inconsistent, whatever the dogmas of the matter may be, that the Government will not admit that perhaps in this particular case they would be prepared to use the generous powers they have given themselves in Clause 7 of the Bill for the benefit of that activity, even though it is distributive. It seems to me to be such a powerful argument in support of my Amendment that I do not propose to labour it any further, in the happy anticipation that the Government will accept the principle of it if nothing else.
The second Amendment seeks to persuade the Board of Trade that in respect of the construction industries there is a strong case for allowing grants, despite the fact that the machinery for which the grants were allowed is to be used outside the United Kingdom. My reason for putting forward this Amendment is that none can deny that the construction industries are in fact the spearhead of a great deal of future export. Being the spearhead it is they, the construction industries, rather than the industries which follow them, which run the greater risks, because they work mostly in developing countries and are exposed to extreme political and economic hazards.
I doubt whether I have to remind Ministers that within these last ten years the construction industry has made tremendous progress. In fact, the value of contracts obtained by British contractors overseas has risen from £72 million in 1955 to some £198 million to-day. This figure reflects the activities of some 60 or 80 companies working in about 80 countries. Of course, not all this £198 million stems directly from the United Kingdom, but I am told that a conservative estimate would be £90 million of activity stemming from this country. That is an export effort. It is just as much an export effort as manufacturing and compares favourably indeed with the export record of a great number of other industries. I shall not quote them all in detail, but if one looks at the trade returns one sees that these figures are better, for example, than the exports of the leather trades, of paper board, of sanitary ware, of furniture, of clothing
1506
or of footwear. And, of course, one must remember that those industries qualify for investment grants, and incidentally, also, qualify for export rebate, from which the construction industry is excluded. Therefore, we are talking about an industrial activity which is of great value to us. One has to remember that it is not only the turnover which the construction industry itself brings to this country which matters to us; it is, as I have said, the spearhead, and every million pounds' worth of work which it does produces many millions of pounds' worth of future exports.
I spoke to my first Amendment with very little hope that the Government would do more than make a gesture, saying that there may well be conceivable circumstances in which exceptions could be made for the express purpose of export or of import saving. But I believe that in regard to the second Amendment—and with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I am rather sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, is not replying, because in a sense I might have struck a more sympathetic chord with him, although I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also, is not without sympathy; I am getting into some difficulty on this point and I hope the noble Lord will forgive me—it is undoubtedly true that these industries are of equal value, in an export sense, to any manufacturing industry. Although I do not want to use an oratorical phrase on a Committee stage, I will just say that whereas one used to say that trade follows the flag, one could now say that trade follows the bulldozer, and I hope that the Government may take that view. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 37, at end insert ("including in particular any assets which can be clearly shown to contribute to increased exports or a specific saving of imports.").—(Lord Redmayne.)
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, has been in this House only a very short time, but as his speeches develop he becomes increasingly persuasive. However, he spoiled it at one moment when he suggested that I was not so sympathetic as he hoped my noble friend Lord Rhodes would be. I thought that was rather hard. I said to him

1507
yesterday that I thought one of the necessities of a Chief Whip in the House of Commons was a long memory. May I say to him now that my experience of being Chief Whip in this House shows that one has to be generally sympathetic to all quarters of the House.
I am very sympathetic to the proposition which the noble Lord has made in his Amendment No. 29. The whole purpose of this Bill is to give assistance, in the way of stimulus, to investment in the manufacturing and extractive industries, for the purpose of exports and for the saving of imports. The noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, is quite right in saying that there are a number of businesses which contribute to the export effort, and we have not at this stage been able to give them a special position in line with the manufacturing and extractive industries. However, they do receive considerable assistance through the various Board of Trade services.
The noble Lord referred to the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1). It is possible under paragraph (a) to vary the rate of grant. We will look at all applications, but we must always bear in mind our need to keep in line with our various international trade agreements, such as GATT. Paragraph (b) gives power to the Board of Trade to bring in a different class of assets or business, and this power we will use. But we shall have to be careful in the early stages how this is used. But I can say—and this is not just a pleasant sound—that the Government are determined to do all they possibly can to assist and stimulate those who are in the export business. This is as vital to this country as anything I can conceive, and this will be the burden of the Board of Trade. I am quite sure that they will use all their efforts to achieve it.
LORD REDMAYNE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Would he add to that assurance, that in carrying out that policy the Board of Trade would not exclude the distributive trade in special circumstances?
LORD SHEPHERD: Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) is quite clear. The words used are:
"assets of a class or description not eligible for grant".
1508
These are very wide words, and the paragraph does not specify a limitation as to what could be included. It has deliberately been drafted widely. It may well be that there are a number of businesses (and, having been in the export trade I can think of a number) which play a very important part in exports and in the earning of overseas currencies, but which are not in themselves even distributive. There are quite a number of businesses which could be helped, and the Government and the Board of Trade will be watching this. If we can give assistance this will be done.
LORD REDMAYNE: May I pursue this point? I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord and he has been very helpful. But he will be aware that in another place a Minister of the Crown specifically said that it was the Government's policy to discriminate against merchant exporters as opposed to exporting manufacturers. That is a very different tune from the one which the noble Lord has so kindly sung today.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am not now giving an undertaking as to what the Government will do in the immediate future. All I am trying to say to the noble Lord is that the power exists to do this and many other things. As time proceeds, assistance will no doubt have to be given to varying forms of business. The noble Lord mentioned merchant houses. We are, in fact, through E.C.G.D. and other Board of Trade organisations, giving considerable assistance to the merchant traders. I think my noble friend Lord Silkin had a point he wished to make.
LORD SILKIN: I am concerned with the position of goods which at present are being imported but which somebody wants to set up a business to produce in this country. Will they get similar support? Such activity is really equivalent to an export, because it is saving imports.
LORD SHEPHERD: I cannot find it now, but I drew the Committee's attention to a provision in the Bill that even in the case of a firm or a group of individuals who, having the capital, wish to manufacture a new item—some item which they have never produced before—a grant will be available to them, if they have satisfied the Board of Trade. So

1509
there is this considerable flexibility, not only in the field of export stimulants but also in the field of import savings. I think, if I may say so, that, through our discussions, the importance of the flexibility of this Bill has become clear—and this is the point that I was stressing right through our discussion on the first Amendment.
I come to the second Amendment—and here I fully recognise all that the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, has said about the importance of the construction industry. The problem is that this Bill is to stimulate investment and modernisation within Britain, although there are some exceptions, such as ships and hovercraft. But the Amendment, as I understand it, would mean that the grants would become available to the construction industry to assist them in, perhaps, the purchase of plant and equipment for use in overseas projects. There is not even a limitation here—and this, of course, would be a dangerous omission, from one point of view—to prevent us from being called upon to make grants to a home-based constructor who is in fact using entirely American equipment in his operations overseas. I should not have thought that that would be very acceptable to the Committee. It is true that we can make grants in respect of American machines if they are used in this country, but that is for the purpose of stimulating our own production. I do not think the taxpayers would take very kindly to the thought that we were providing monies from their own tax contributions for the purchase of foreign equipment for use in foreign lands. But—and this is the difficulty—if we were to put in the stipulation that the equipment had to be of British manufacture, then one would again be up against all the difficulties as regards GATT and the various other trading agreements.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, that we have now included (and I think very rightly) the construction industry within Clause 1, which means that companies will receive the varying
grants, either 20 per cent. or 40 per cent. according to the area in which that construction company is operating. This should have a significant effect, I think, upon the construction industry; and, if my memory serves me aright, most of the large construction companies which operate overseas have themselves large, home-based construction companies, so they will, in fact, receive the stimulus. I am sorry, but I cannot possibly accept Amendment No. 30. As for Amendment No. 29, I assure the Committee that it is not necessary. The Government are determined to meet the spirit behind the Amendment, but we do not think the Amendment itself is necessary, since the powers are already contained within the Bill.
LORD REDMAYNE: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said about Amendment No. 29, and, with leave, I should like to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD REDMAYNE: If I may, I should like to move this Amendment formally. I accept that the Minister has done his best, but I think he could do more if the will was there. Therefore, I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 37, at end insert ("and when considering making such grants shall not be bound by section 1(1) or by section 4(2) of this Act (which specify that machinery or plant must be for use in Great Britain):
Provided that it can be shown by the applicant that he is—

(a) an individual ordinarily resident in Great Britain, or

(b) a body corporate incorporated and resident in Great Britain

and that the machinery and plant in question is to be used for the execution of specified industrial contracts outside Great Britain.").—(Lord Redmayne.)
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Carrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Atholl, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Auckland, L.

Daventry, V.

Fortescue, E.

Barnby, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Boston, L.

Effingham, E.

Grenfell, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Hawke, L.

Ilford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Merrivale, L.

St. Helens, L.

Kilmany, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Kilmarnock, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Luke, L.

Redmayne, L.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hurcomb, L.

Rhodes, L.

Amulree, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Rowley, L.

Beswick, L.

Kahn, L.

Royle, L.

Bowden, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Burden, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Southwark, Bp.

Crook, L.

Moyle, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Francis-Williams, L.

Peddie, L.

Stonham, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Summerskill, Bs.

Hall, V.

Plummer, Bs.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Rea, L.

Willis, L.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.0 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved to add to the clause:
"() No order under this section shall result in the reduction of a grant below the rate ruling at the time when any contract to incur the expenditure was made."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 33. This is a short but simple Amendment which noble Lords opposite intend to cover in the Statutory Orders which will be made under this Bill. The Amendment would have the effect of protecting an applicant for a grant towards the cost of machinery or plant which qualified in terms of the current Order from losing the grant because the President of the Board of Trade had introduced a new Order varying the conditions in a way which excludes the machinery or plant concerned before the grant is paid. We know that an eighteen months' interval may elapse—later it may be shortened to six months—before the grant is paid. The Amendment would provide that where a firm contract had been entered into to buy the plant, the application would still qualify despite the terms of a new Order.
As noble Lords opposite know, one of the main objections and criticisms of industry, and indeed of my noble friends on this side, to this Bill is the uncertainty of getting a grant as compared with the former investment allowances which were given as of right. Despite the sedentary interjections of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, this is the fact. These grants are at the discretion of the President of the
1512
Board of Trade the old investment allowances were automatic. Indeed, it is part of the case of noble Lords opposite for bringing in this Bill that they believe they will get a better effect by making it discretionary. Time will show. But this is the objection; and it is in order to clear up this narrow point to-day that I put this Amendment down. I hope noble Lords opposite will be able to meet this point, and as their intention is to put it in a Statutory Order later I feel it will be all the better if it were in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD SHEPHERD: There is a proverb which says that the leopard does not change its spots. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, who spoke yesterday in the debate on incomes and prices, said that it was now time for the Conservative Party to speak for the ordinary man in the street. We have been in Committee on this Bill and, if I remember aright, there have been three Divisions. The first would have required the Board of Trade, out of taxpayers' money, to make investment grants to the brewers—the ordinary people of the country! Then there were the big landlords with their estates of timber. They were to receive, according to noble Lords opposite, by a Division, an investment allowance out of taxpayers' money. We have just had a Division in which, thank goodness!, the Committee showed some sense. Noble Lords opposite wanted taxpayers' money to be available to the great construction industry working overseas, free to buy foreign equipment.
LORD REDMAYNE: May I—
LORD SHEPHERD: Let me finish; I am going to say what I think. When my noble friend Lord Royle spoke for a depressed area of the country not one voice was raised from the other side. I find it hard to believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, spoke in such terms yesterday. The leopard does not change its spats; and, so far as I can see in this House, it never will. I wanted to get that off my chest. I have done so. If the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, wishes now to intervene he may do so.
LORD REDMAYNE: I want to intervene only to say this: that although I sympathise with the noble Lord's indignation I hope he will allow it to go on the record that I made no reference to giving grants for foreign equipment. That was, and remains, no part of my argument.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord must understand that the Amendment on which he voted permitted it; and I told him so. He never denied it. That is the Amendment on which the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, and his friends opposite voted. Therefore they cannot make excuses by saying they did not mean that; it is for that they voted.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: The noble Lord accused me of having spots. I do not have them and cannot change them.
LORD SHEPHERD: Shall we proceed with the more genteel—
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: Might I make one point? The noble Lord, in referring to the buying of foreign equipment, conceded the point that contracting firms in this country may buy foreign equipment. What is the criticism of buying foreign equipment in respect of overseas contracts? If the case of the noble Lord, Lord Royle, was that there are depressed areas not included in the Bill, why have the Government not included them?
LORD SHEPHERD: The subtle difference (perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, does not appreciate it: he obviously does not) is that if we are able to buy foreign equipment, if we
1514
are forced to buy foreign equipment, and we use it in British factories, at least we give work to British workmen.
LORD RHODES: Exactly!
LORD SHEPHERD: Is that not right? But if we buy foreign equipment to use in Singapore, do we use British workmen?
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: British supervisors.
LORD SHEPHERD: British supervisors—which no doubt come from the sort of spots we have been talking about. But we must get on. I wanted to get that off my chest. I have done it, and most of my noble friends are glad that I did it.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in a much quieter speech than I have just delivered, said that the industry which will receive these grants should have some security, and the knowledge that if equipment is purchased, and if the rate was to be varied, industry would not suffer by it. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has made quite clear that we do not intend to make frequent and sweeping changes in the investment grants. That is our firm intention.
I cannot go so far as the noble Lord suggests, that a person who has made a contract or an undertaking to purchase equipment prior to the Order that is being made for the reduction of the grant should automatically be entitled to the earlier grant. It may well be that when an Order is made there will be a period between the making of the Order and the actual reduction taking place. But we must have some protection here. Again speaking as a merchant, I have seen the back-dating of orders in order that the Order should not be applied in any granting of an import licence. I have seen letters of credit being established and pro forma orders made to cover a certain position, perhaps even for the sale of the import licence itself. There are certain malpractices—here I am not condemning industry at all but it will be recognised that there are some black sheep in industry. It may well be that orders could be back-dated in such a way that grants would have to be paid if the Amendment were accepted. I will give the very firm assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to put in jeopardy the

1515
genuine investors and manufacturers in this country; nor do we intend to make frequent and sweeping changes in the rate. But we need to have some degree of protection for taxpayers' money.
6.13 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the latter part of his speech dealing with the point that I raised? While of course I enjoyed the very dramatic intervention which he made to start with, I would explain that I was not asking either for the spotting or de-spotting of leopards to qualify for a grant. My request is a small one. I would remind the noble Lord that at the present time, under the provisions of the Agriculture Bill which is going through Parliament, there is a new system of grants coming in. It will still be another six months or more before that Bill is on the Statute Book. Nevertheless, since the beginning of this year, in other words for the last six months, and maybe eighteen months before the Bill is on the Statute Book, grants are being accepted on the evidence of the order of the applicant qualifying when the scheme occurs. So in principle I am asking no more than that concession in this case.
I am not asking for any back-dating, but only that where an applicant qualifies at the time he signs his contract, and if by chance the scheme is changed in the interval before he gets the grant, he shall still qualify. I feel that it is a very reasonable point and quite a reasonable thing to ask the noble Lord to make this concession in order to give industrialists the confidence which I am sure he wants them to have.
LORD SHEPHERD: Was the noble Lord asking if I can give an assurance if an investor makes a firm contract and, shall we say, a day after he has entered into the contract an Order is made?—in other words, he will have entered into the contract before the order is made but does not make his claim till perhaps three or four weeks later—
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord in order to make my point clear? My point is that, where the investor has actually made his application and lodged it with the President of the Board of Trade, and
1516
then a period of at least six months or possibly longer will be involved, I am asking that his application should qualify.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am glad to hear that. Now I can really help the noble Lord. If the investor has made his application before an order is made to reduce the grant, the fact that he has made his application means that he will get the grant at the old rate. The problem we had in mind was the evidence of contract. If the noble Lord is satisfied that the investor has notified the Board of Trade prior to the making of the order, then he will get the grant.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the assurance he has given. I should have liked it to be in the Bill but, for fear of being accused of further "jungle warfare", I will ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HAWKE: Before we part with this clause, I should like to say a few sentences upon it. It is a very extraordinary clause but necessary in very extraordinary circumstances. We are in fact withdrawing from industrialists the grants they had from the pool of taxation to encourage them to invest money and we are redistributing it, or rather we are leaving the power to the Minister to redistribute it in certain specified directions and, by this clause, in any other direction that he, with the consent of Parliament, may afterwards agree to. This is almost unprecedented in this country on this scale. Fortunately, in this country we have always been remarkably free from any major public scandal. But suppose every country in the world were to pass this legislation to-day and put it on the Statute Book. I venture to think that in 90 per cent. of those countries there would, within a short time, be a major public financial scandal. I only hope and pray that it will not lead to that sort of thing in this country.
As I say, it is a very extraordinary clause. In fact, I have never seen the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, so exhilarated in this House before, as he is at the

1517
thought of this clause. It made me wonder whether he had been "hitting the L.S.D." while the going was still good, before the order came into force.
LORD SHEPHERD: Noble Lords opposite—I am getting a little tired of it—in every speech continue to ask, "Is this a precedent?" In my experience, and I think that this is true of life, when we move forward in some respects we establish a precedent. So far as this type of grant is concerned the use of an Order is to widen and make the operation of the Bill or the Act more flexible. It has appeared in many pieces of legislation. If the noble Lord wishes to think in terms of large sums of money, he might speak to his noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford with regard to the Agriculture Acts. Here we pour out millions of pounds, very sensibly and usefully, and vary this by order year after year with the consent of Parliament. I see no precedent in that. If there is a precedent, then I am glad that it is a precedent.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
6.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:
Right of Appeal
"—(1) Where a person applying for a grant such as mentioned in any of the first six sections of this Act is aggrieved by a decision of the Board with respect to any of the following matters:

(a) the refusal to make a grant

(b) the amount of the grant paid

(c) the failure to make a grant within nine months of application

(d) a decision on the part of the Board that a condition imposed under section 8(1) has not been fulfilled

(e) a requirement that any grant should be repaid in full or in part

he may appeal to the Appeal Tribunal.
(2) On an appeal under this section the Appeal Tribunal may confirm the decision of the Board appealed against, or substitute there-for any decision which the Board could have made under this Part of this Act, in which case the Board shall give effect to the decision of the Tribunal.
(3) Any decision of the Tribunal shall be conclusive for all purposes.
(4) For the twenty-four months immediately following the coming into effect of this Act, paragraph (c) of subsection (1) shall have effect as if for the words 'nine months' there were substituted the words 'eighteen months'."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name. I made some reference to this Amendment when discussing on the first Amendment whether the power of the Board to make grants should be discretionary, as it is in the Bill, or mandatory. The reason was that if it were made mandatory, it was necessary to provide some form of appeal. I agreed to withdraw that Amendment, but that does not dispose of this one. While a form of appeal is not absolutely necessary where the power is discretionary, it may still be very desirable. The Minister of State said in another place:
"…we have not set our minds against a statutory form of appeals procedure".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 732, col. 409, 19/7/66.]
This Amendment is designed to discover whether, in the past fortnight or so, the Government have set their minds against it. A good deal can be said, on grounds both of principle and of practice, for providing a form of appeal to an outside body. I know that the noble Lord would not like a comparison with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. There is the difference in that a decision can be appealed against, but the main reason they do not like the comparison is that in the Government's opinion the appeals in some cases of investment allowances have resulted in the wrong decisions. I think that that is an argument unlikely to commend itself to your Lordships.
There is ample precedent for some form of appeal. It comes almost textually from the Statute Book, with only such changes as the subject matter appeared to require.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord help me? Which Act did he refer to when he mentioned the Statute Book?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should have thought that, with all his advisers, the noble Lord would have been advised of the Act.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD DRUMALBYN: What is the Board of Trade coming to, if it cannot brief noble Lords on Acts of Parliament? The noble Lord knows perfectly well which Act.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am not trying now to be slick and to score a point. I

1519
genuinely want to know the class of legislation to which the noble Lord was referring. What I really wanted to have from him was whether it was legislation of a permissive character.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes; in a sense it is permissive. The drafting comes from the National Assistance Act. Discretion is there laid on the National Assistance Board. There is ample precedent. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I have merely selected what seemed to me to be a good form. The fact that it was a simpler form made it all the easier for me to put it down.
How often has the noble Lord, when he was on this side, said that he was talking about the principle and not the details of an Amendment! What I am suggesting here is the principle that there should be an appeal. Can we agree on that basis? I do not propose to press this Amendment, because I realise that this particular form of words may not be desirable. On principle, unless there are strong overriding considerations, I should not have thought it reasonable that where a Department makes a decision on whether a person is entitled to some benefit provided by an Act of Parliament, the sole form of redress open to someone who is turned down should be merely to ask the same Department kindly to reconsider its decision. This is the position that we have in the Bill as it stands.
On practical grounds, as my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale said, an appeal tribunal is to be preferred, because an appeal to a Department against its own decision is going to take up a great deal more time. First, there are representations to the Department and then to the Member of Parliament, who may well lobby a hard-pressed Minister; and this may be followed by deputations and all the rest. I am sure that the Government have considered this point. They may not have found their way round it, but I think it is worth while asking the Government, if they are unable to accept the principle of an appeal, in spite of the fact that the Minister of State said that he had an open mind on it, to give their reasons.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I recognise the benefit in having some body to arbitrate between a claimant and the Minister who has to make a decision, but we have to take into account the purpose of the legislation. We have tried to maintain this Bill as a permissive piece of legislation, to lay down the responsibilities of the Minister and the areas and conditions in which grants can be made. We also give him discretion to make orders to widen these or in certain cases to contract them. My right honourable friend said that he did not intend to discriminate between one firm and another, and I should have thought that the fact that the Minister said that in Parliament was sufficient assurance that such a course would not be adopted by the Board.
If this is a permissive piece of legislation it is illogical that we should then set up an outside body to decide whether the Minister had been right or wrong in the way he used his discretion. The difficulties that we have had over the investment allowances stem from the fact that that legislation was mandatory and your Lordships' House, sitting in its Judicial capacity, has ruled some strange things. They were good judgments in law, I suppose, but I do not think that they represent what the Government and Parliament had in mind when they passed legislation on the use of public money. This is one of the difficulties, when a judicial body has the power to make judgments on a Minister who is responsible to Parliament for the spending of public money. The Minister is answerable to Parliament and I do not think it right that we should then put an outside body to sit in judgment on him.
The point I am trying to get across to the noble Lord, who referred to the National Assistance Act, is that under that Act a mandatory obligation is placed upon the Minister in regard to the operation of his duties. There is a degree of discrimination, it is true; but basically it is a mandatory duty. Clearly, that is rather different from the situation under this Bill. That Act deals with matters of great social importance. It deals with individuals, some perhaps in need of protection and guidance—especially, probably, protection; and in those circumstances it is right that there should be these various outside bodies. But here we are not dealing with that. We are

1521
dealing with hard-headed businessmen—and I hope that they will be hard-headed, and will go after exports and seek import-saving, in the same manner as I hope they will go to the Board of Trade to seek these grants.
I hope that the noble Lord now accepts the view that this Bill should be permissive. When dealing with an Amendment, replied to by my noble friend Lord Rhodes, the noble Lord said that we must keep this Bill flexible and must resist inflexibility. He said that two or three times: that one cannot have flexibility, and one cannot reduce inflexibility, unless the Bill is in this permissive state. And if it is in this permissive state, then the responsibility should be laid upon the Minister, and it would be wrong to have another body to pass judgment in a case where the Minister is finally responsible and stands on the judgment of Parliament.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord's explanation would, I think, be sounder, and would carry more weight, were it not for Clause 1(1)(b), which contains a very nebulous definition of what activity is liable to obtain a grant. Under that paragraph you can get a grant if you are
"carrying on in the course of that business scientific research relating to a qualifying industrial process whether carried on in the course of that business or not."
I can think of all sorts of possible interpretations that could be put upon that particular collection of words. The applicant, if carrying on some sort of scientific research, tells the Minister: "I want 20 per cent, or 40 per cent. Grant". Presumably, the answer comes back: "Sorry; no". He will not have the slightest idea why he has been turned down, and he has no redress whatever unless he goes to Sir Edmund Compton—and Sir Edmund Compton will have such a queue of applicants to deal with that it will take years for him to get through. There should be some method by which a man can find out precisely what he has to do to qualify, and why he has been turned down.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, does not seem to be able to get into his head what is the purpose of this Bill. It is to stimulate the manufacturing industry, and the science-based side of it is of tremendous importance.
1522
We have therefore included it in Clause 1(1)(b), which says:
"for carrying on in the course of that business scientific research relating to a qualifying process…"
If a man or a company is doing that, and is clearly conducting a business of scientific research connected with a qualified industrial process, he will get the grant. The noble Lord says: "How will he know that he will get the grant?" It is quite obvious. He will do what every other manufacturer will do. He will knock on the door of the Board of Trade Office and say: "These are my circumstances. This is what I am doing. What grant am I entitled to?" This is done every day in business. If I want to sell something I have to go and sell it; and if I want to buy, sometimes I have to go and buy it. It is necessary to go out.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is not suggesting that the Board of Trade should go around finding out all the people who want to receive grants. But I will say this to the noble Lord—and it is what my noble friend Lord Rhodes said on Tuesday: that we intend to publish from time to time lists of machinery and plant on which grants are being paid. This will be a continuing and, no doubt, growing list. But if your article does not appear on that list, do not give up hope. If you are within the definition of this Bill, go to the Board of Trade. I cannot really believe that the Board of Trade can be expected to do much more than that.
LORD HAWKE: I think the noble Lord went a little further than that in an answer he gave me the other day. He said that the Board of Trade would certainly give a ruling in advance of an applicant purchasing industrial machinery.
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly.
LORD HAWKE: Will the Board of Trade give a similar answer in the case of somebody proposing to set up a laboratory for some particular form of pure scientific research when it is doubtful whether or not it precisely relates to an industrial process? That is the point.
LORD SHEPHERD: If you go to the Board of Trade and say, "This is what I intend to do", and you satisfy the Board of Trade that what you have in

1523
mind is both sensible and sound, that you really intend to do it and you come within this definition, the grant is available to you. I cannot see what the difficulty is. Businessmen, at least, will know what to do.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Of course, there is a real difference of opinion, and, as he knows, there are limits of flexibility. In any form of administration administrative instructions have to be drawn up if the administration is to be done in a coherent way. On the basis of those administrative instructions you could have abasis of appeal. What we wanted to do was to guard against a feeling of injustice and dissatisfaction which might arise if there were disputes on questions of fact which could not be resolved. This is all there is to it.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord is aware that advisory committees will be set up. These committees will not arbitrate between the Board of Trade and an applicant, but their advice will be there on whether what is being produced, or what may be produced, comes within this definition. So this outside body exists to give advice to the Minister.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry that the noble Lord has not quite understood what I was saying. It is simply that I wanted to fill this gap that is left. There will be the technical advice that will come from the advisory committee, but there may still be disputes as to whether or not a person fulfils the qualifications. It is apparent that Government have now closed their mind—it was open a fortnight ago—and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
6.40 p.m.
Clause 12 [Annual reports]:
LORD ERROLL OF HALE LORD ERROLL OF HALE moved to add to the clause:
"The first report shall list all items of plant and equipment qualifying for grants, together with all those items in respect of which application has been made and refused and the views of the Advisory Committees where relevant. Subsequent reports shall list all additions, changes and deletions to the original list."
The noble Lord said: The noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Rhodes, in
1524
maintaining their principle of flexibility, have frequently referred to the fact that it would be quite easy for potential applicants to come to the Board of Trade to find out whether or not they are eligible for a grant. The purpose of this Amendment—and I apologise if the drafting is clumsy, though I hope the intention is clear—is to ensure that the Board of Trade will provide published lists which will show what is eligible and, possibly, what is clearly not eligible, certainly in the marginal cases.
The first list will be big, but at the end of each year it would be of value to industry if they could know what cases have been decided for and against by the advisory committees (or classes of case, as I understand that they are not to deal with individual items) and thus build up over a period of years a fully understood system, without the need for anybody having to refer to the Board of Trade about individual matters. This is the purpose behind the Amendment. If it could be achieved in any other way, if the Government do not feel they can accept it in this form, I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment to enable an alternative Amendment to be tabled by Her Majesty's Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Erroll of Hale.)
LORD RHODES: This reminds me of a colleague of mine in the House of Commons, who was always going to make a speech and he always gathered together the facts. Whenever one talked to him he said, "I am always getting the facts". He accumulated so many facts, but he was never able to make a speech, and his life went on like that for him. I am afraid that if this Amendment were to be put in the Bill we should be similarly placed at the Board of Trade.
It has been suggested to us on numerous occasions that we should make information available to firms to enable them to judge whether their applications are likely to be allowed. We have every intention of assisting firms in the submission of application forms, since if this scheme is to work effectively it is essential that they should know how best to take advantage of it. We intend doing that, and I can give that assurance now.

1525
Having said that, may I say to the noble Lord who moved this Amendment in his usual engaging manner, that it is quite impossible to do this on account of the staff side of the question. It would require too large a staff. The flexibility the noble Lord talks about would cost a lot of money. I noticed the other day that a Question was asked, and there was an argument, about the increase in the size of the Civil Service. If we had to do this it would mean a tremendous increase.
This is a discretionary scheme, intended to concentrate the benefit of Government financial assistance to industry on certain key sectors, particularly manufacturing, construction and extraction. To this end, we have used in the Bill the concept of a qualifying industrial process, which renders new plant or machinery eligible to receive grants if it is provided for use in that process. There are bound to be cases where the same asset—and this is the point—for instance, storage equipment or fork-lift trucks, would be eligible for grant when it was provided for use in connection with a qualifying process, but not where it was used in the course of distribution. You could not say, for instance, by seeing a list like that, whether it would qualify or not, because every single application would have to be identified as a qualifying process. I am sure that the noble Lord, who has great experience in these matters, will see this, and will understand that it would involve a tremendous amount of work. If this request is to be of any use to anybody, it will have to cover everything, because otherwise it would not be any good. My word, when you think of that, it would be as big as the Domes day Book.
The noble Lord has had experience on the overseas side of the Board of Trade in his long career in the House of Commons, and he knows that the Custom Tariff, although it only identifies items broadly, nevertheless is enormous in its spread. But it would be nothing compared with this, because if every single item which was available was published, one industry being qualifiable and another one not, I am afraid that it would be so impossible, and it really would put up the need for money and staff. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be kind enough to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: I am most grateful for the explanation. I see that there are practical difficulties in the form in which I put it forward. But, surely, inside the Board of Trade there will have to be a compendium of this sort. May I therefore make the suggestion that that compendium could at least be available for inspection by applicants, rather than that they should have to write in in each case? As I believe there are to be five centres for the administration of investment grants, presumably each centre will have a compendium—if you may call it that—in order to ensure uniformity as between one area and another. Will it be possible for intending applicants to be able to inspect the compendium, quite informally, if necessary on payment of a small fee, rather than that each one should have to write a letter which would then be separately answered by an official? That will go a long way to meeting my point.
Secondly, there are also the borderline cases or the types of case which will presumably go before the licensing committees. It would be a great help for the borderline cases, whichever side of the line they may fall, if the reasoning behind the decision could be made public, so that people would know the principles on which the Board of Trade were acting and, therefore, would not bother to put in a similar application a year later, because the Case Law, so to speak, had been established, and was either published or made available for inspection.
LORD RHODES: There is a lot of sense in that suggestion. I will think about it, without being able to promise in what form we can increase the information available to applicants. We are intending giving applicants all the information we possibly can. There is no "hole-and-corner" about this at all in our minds. What we want is for these people, who are wanting to invest in capital equipment, to get what they are entitled to. We are not shoving off our responsibilities. The other day I promised that there would be a booklet available in the autumn, and I think I can safely say that it will make more information available, not only to the offices that are set up, but also to the trade associations. I am hoping that the trade associations will

1527
take a great interest in this, and that they will be able to tell their members what kind of facilities are available and what they should do about an application. I think it is up to everybody to help in what the Bill is intending to do.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: In view of the helpful explanations, and the assurance that my proposals will be looked at, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Interpretation and supplementary provisions.
13.—(1) In this Part of this Act—
"machinery or plant" includes part of any machinery or plant but does not include a computer, ship or aircraft or any vehicle except—
(b) a vehicle constructed or adapted for the conveyance or haulage of loads in or about private premises, including the site of building or civil engineering operations;
"ship" includes any vessel used in navigation.
6.50 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in the definition of "machinery or plant", to leave out "or about" and insert:
"about or between private premises occupied by the same person".
The noble Lord said: The definition of "machinery and plant" excludes vehicles except those specified in the following paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (b) refers to:
"a vehicle constructed or adapted for the conveyance or haulage of loads in or about private premises, including the site of building or civil engineering operations;"
I suggest that the words "in or about" are perhaps more restrictive than was intended. I have not tried to expand the definition further than seems to me absolutely necessary, partly because this question has been debated in another place, and I am not sure if, in fact, I have extended it quite far enough.
I think there are three points here. I have in mind the sort of case where a firm has two or three plants close together, but not adjoining. I was told of one case where one firm happened to occupy
1528
a site whereas its competitor in the same town occupied three separate sites. It seems to me that as the Bill stands the second firm might have to buy three separate specially constructed vehicles where one would do. The second case is where a firm occupies two sites, separated by a main road, and materials or semi-manufactured goods have to be transferred between them. The case has been put to me of a company owning a quarry on one side of the road and a factory on the other, and dumpers, which are specially constructed for this type of work, take the materials across from the quarry to the factory. These vehicles are not only permitted to cross the highway under the law but also exempted from Vehicle Excise duty under Section 6 of the Vehicles Excise Act 1962. I am sure it is not intended that such vehicles, if otherwise qualified for grant, would be excluded from grant merely because they go outside private premises. It looks as if it would be impossible under the Bill to give a grant because then they would not be purely "in and about" Does "in and about" mean only in and about, or not? One knows how restrictive the law can be.
The third point is that the Board of Trade not only encourage but offer inducements to firms to expand into development districts, now to be called development areas, rather than to expand their existing premises. This means that such a firm may often transport semi-manufactured goods for processing or finishing from its original factory to its new factory in the development area, or vice versa. If vehicles of a certain type are constructed or adapted for carrying goods from one plant to another in the original premises, and one of the processes is transferred to premises in the development area, it seems reasonable that new vehicles of the same type provided for the same purposes should receive the grant if their use is to be confined to carrying loads from one plant to another, even though one of the plants is hundreds of miles from the other. After all, this is what happens when the Board of Trade have persuaded a firm to go to a development area in, say, the North of Scotland. If this point is not conceded then obviously the attraction of setting up a factory elsewhere is to that extent diminished.
So there are these three cases: the case of several plants fairly close together; the case of plants being merely separated by a main road, and the case of plants fairly far distant. I recognise that I have restricted this perhaps more than was intended by the words "occupied by the same person". I am not certain whether that was necessary, but obviously if they are in and about the same premises they are occupied by the same person, otherwise it would not be the same premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 2, leave out ("or about") and insert ("about or between private premises occupied by the same person").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD RHODES: We wondered whether these were probing Amendments to find out what sort of vehicles would be eligible, and I take it that that is partly the reason. With regard to the first case, we have to show a bit of common sense about this matter. It is the vehicle that counts, and I want to make it absolutely clear that internal transport will qualify but external transport will not. If it were said that a fork-lift truck would do the job of working in the factory and carrying the materials across the road, then provided that vehicle was insured and licensed to enable it to cross a highway that would be all right. If it was a private road it would not matter, of course; they would go into the next factory and get on with it and nobody would quibble about it.
With regard to the second case, there again we have the difference between one vehicle and another. If somebody said, "All right, we shall have a three-ton truck and do the job that a forklift truck will do, but we shall be able to use the three-ton truck for all sorts of other things", we would rule that out. As regards the third case, where the new business has been established in a development area, that would naturally bring it right into the realm of transport and it would not be allowed. In order to qualify it must have special features which make it a works vehicle. I want to make that quite clear so that nobody has any doubt about it, and anyone who thinks he can substitute for a works vehicle something which can be used for a totally different purpose should be
1530
warned at this juncture. After all is said and done, it would be patently unfair for one firm to have the benefit of being able to run a vehicle in those circumstances somewhere else in a development area.
I am afraid I cannot concede anything on this point, except to say that common sense will be used in regard to works vehicles. If the works were contiguous one to another we should not say, "Because it is across a little road you cannot use it". Of course they will be able to use it, and this is what will happen in practice, but the difference is between one vehicle and another. If it is doing the job for which it was designed as a works vehicle, that is all right; but you cannot have a vehicle which is likely to run long distances for a totally different type of work. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation but I do not think he has gone as far as I should have liked him to go. It is not enough to talk about "just a little road"; either you can cross the highway or you cannot. I am sure you can. I am sure this is where common sense will come in. Vehicles of this kind do not need a licence; I have been given this assurance by those who are operating them. There is the additional point that some vehicles actually carry out excavating as well as being vehicles. I take it that something could be treated as machinery if it is machinery, even though it does haul a load incidentally as well. I am sure this should be so. I see the difficulty the noble Lord is in about competition with other forms of transportation, and I should not wish to press this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.0 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved, after the definition of "machinery or plant", to insert:
"'making' includes any process held by a decision of any Court of Record to be manufacturing;".
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment would be to bring within the scope of the grants under this Bill the operations of corn and agricultural merchants and the agricultural co-operative societies. By some mischance this

1531
is the first time this particular Amendment has been discussed either here or in another place, and I feel it is of some importance and therefore it should be urged on noble Lords opposite. There are some 2,000 of these merchants in the country and of course there are a large number of agricultural co-operative societies, and they play a basic part in the agricultural industry.
Inquiries by some of the agricultural merchants have indicated that the Ministry of Labour classifies them under Order XX, heading 831, in the Standard Industrial Classification; that is to say, along with distributors of coal, building materials, et cetera; in other words, as a purely distributive industry. I understand that the Standard Industrial Classification is going to be used by Her Majesty's Government for the selective employment tax. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us if it is the intention of the Board of Trade to use this Classification for grants under this Bill. While the information is coming to him, I will proceed to make my point.
My Amendment would have the effect of bringing the industry within the definition of "manufacturing", therefore qualifying for grant, and my Amendment does that by reference to the leading case of McCausland v. The Ministry of Commerce (Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, 1955), which held that the operations of a corn and agricultural merchant amounted to "the manufacture of goods". These operations are, first, manufacturing animal-feeding stuffs; secondly, manufacturing by adaptation for sale cereals, herbage and other seeds; and, thirdly, manufacturing by drying, grading and conditioning home-grown grain.
In post-war years the nature of the corn and agricultural merchants business has changed substantially from the prewar world, when they were mainly distributive; they have become mainly manufacturing industry, and the change has occurred as a result of the very big increase of production from our own farms both of cereals and of herbage seeds. Home-grown cereals production has increased no less than eight times since pre-war, from one and a half million tons per annum to twelve million tons per annum. The agricultural merchant has been called upon to handle a very large part
1532
of this, drying, cleaning and storing it, and in many cases mixing and compounding as well.
A good instance is malting barley. In pre-war days we imported three-quarters of our malting barley; now it is 100 per cent. home-grown and there is a great deal exported as well. Much of this has to be cleaned, conditioned and stored by merchants, so that the whole picture of what the merchant does has changed. It has changed with the big increase of acreage and the arrival of the combine harvester, which has eliminated the old corn stack and completely changed the farming scene. This trend will continue as home-grown cereal production continues to increase to replace costly imports, and that is of course what we wish it to do.
The result is that the modern corn and agricultural merchants' premises have changed completely from the memories of my boyhood, with the traditional sleepy mill house with its barns by the mill pond. To-day these mills are small factories humming with expensive modern machinery and bristling with modern storage bins. Much more will be needed both on and off the farm as we continue to increase production and to increase capacity and save valuable labour. If the industry were to be deprived of investment allowances and they were not to be replaced by grants under this Bill, there would be quite a serious handicap to the further modernising and re-equipment which is needed in the handling of feeding stuffs, seeds, et cetera. This, of course, would mean some increase in costs in the business of food production, which of course would be undesirable, paid either by the housewife in higher prices or in bigger awards at annual Price Reviews.
I believe this is a good case. This happens through the definition which is being used being an old-fashioned one. The nature of this business really has changed to being a manufacturing one. I hope the noble Lord opposite will feel that I have made out a case which he can accept. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 4, at end insert—
("'making' includes any process held by a decision of any Court of Record to be manufacturing;").—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
LORD SHEPHERD: In future the noble Lord, so far as I am concerned, is going to be known as "Griffith Nugent", because I think that is about the fastest bit of bowling I recollect in a Committee stage—that we should have the matter of agriculture, particularly in connection with grain, raised when the Amendment on the Order Paper refers to a Court of Record. I think the noble Lord has scored a point. I would agree with him that the storage and the processing of grain is a growing and important industry. I say to him that manufacturing, as I understand it in the Bill, means when you turn one thing into something else. I understand that turning water into ice is manufacturing, turning something else into oxygen is manufacturing, but turning warm air into cold air is not manufacturing. So if we understand that manufacturing is turning something into something else, then we can see that in the industry to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention—where there is plant and machinery which is turning grain or whatever it may be into something else, perhaps feeding stuffs, cattle cake or perhaps even seed preparation—a grant would be available. But I understand that no grant would be available for such things as washing or even grading. I would not wish to be dogmatic on that, because, as I said, the noble Lord has bowled a pretty fast ball. I must tell the noble Lord that we do not intend to use the Standard Industrial Classification as a guide-line. We have, as I have repeatedly said, and no doubt the Committee is getting rather tired of it, the general provisions of Clause 1. We have the degree of flexibility that we want and we intend to use that, always having in mind the purpose of the Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. I think it would be wrong for some particular judgment to be used as a basis for putting pressure upon a Minister. As I said on a recent Amendment, the responsibility is the Minister's; he is responsible to Parliament, and I should have thought that would be sufficient. A Minister is under considerable pressure in Parliament. It is not as though he can act in any dictatorial sense. There are limitations as to what he can and cannot do. These are the limitations which are imposed upon him by Parliament, as the noble Lord himself knows.
1534
Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment. I will repeat that it was a fast ball, and if I have not dealt with it properly I will get in touch with him, so that he can raise this matter on Report stage on Monday and then perhaps I can deal with it more adequately.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for his answer and I apologise if it appeared to be a fast ball. It was not intended to be. Of course, it is rare that the admirable advisers behind the noble Lord do not know precisely the meaning of every Amendment, from whatever angle it comes.
LORD SHEPHERD: I may say that the brief I have says, "The object of this Amendment is obscure".
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should be glad to be compared to Mr. Griffith in any capacity. If I had the speed that he has, I should think that I was doing quite well. I apologise if the meaning is obscure, because the intention behind it is a serious one; and it is curious that this particular point has not been dealt with earlier in the proceedings, for obviously it is a good one. But I am encouraged by what the noble Lord has told me: that where there is an element of manufacturing which is manufacturing, premises could qualify; and particularly that he is not intending to use the standard industrial classification.
I think it may be for the convenience of the noble Lord, and indeed of the Committee, if I put down the Amendment again on Report stage, so that he will then have a chance to obtain the full advice of his advisers, which was a little less complete than it usually is. I should like then to hear the full story. In the light of the noble Lord's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Extension of powers under Local Employment Act 1960. 1960 c. 18.]:
7.14 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALEmoved to leave out subsection (8). The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment and

1535
the following Amendment together, if that is for the convenience of the Committee. The object of Amendment No. 44 is to ensure that no place which was a development district shall be excluded from being in a development area under the new legislation. I have in mind particularly Bridlington, about which I made some reference in the Second Reading debate, but I think there is a small area in North Wales which has been left out. It is not too late to rectify a measure of unfairness to these two places.
But if the Government is unable to accept Amendment No. 44, Amendment No. 45 would relieve certain hardship occurring in these two localities. One or two firms have only recently gone to Bridlington, in the confident expectation that development district facilities and inducements will continue to be available to them for some time to come. One of those inducements was free depreciation, which is coming to an end in any case, but, in substitution, in development areas there is a 40 per cent. grant. They will not get that. They will get only 20 per cent.
The purpose of Amendment No. 45 is to ensure that not only now in the case of Bridlington and, I think, Rhyl, in North Wales, but in any case in future when the boundaries of a development area are revised, those late arrivals in the areas will continue to receive the benefits for a period of at least three years after the area ceases to be a development area, provided they have not already been there for four years. The point of this is that when a development area becomes more prosperous, the Board of Trade may find some difficulty in persuading firms to go to that area, because there will be no guarantee that the inducements will not be chopped off arbitrarily at some date in the near future.
This Amendment ensures that any firm going to a development area knows that it will have a minimum period of three years in which to have all the facilities of going to a development area. If it continues to be a development area for a long time, then, once the firm has been there for four years, it knows that it will be cut off, like everybody else, when that particular locality ceases to form a development area. I submit this as a rea-
1536
sonable Amendment, designed to help some firms who might otherwise have doubts about the wisdom of going to development areas. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 20, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Erroll of Hale.)
LORD RHODES: Before I begin, I should like to give the noble Lord the opportunity to correct a remark he has just made. He said that when an area becomes prosperous it may not be possible to influence people to go there. I am sure he did not mean that, because the whole object of having a development area is to make it prosperous so that we can move on to a "grey" area, or somewhere else, to make that prosperous, too. I do not think he really meant to say what he did.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: I did not think of a "grey" area in connection with this Bill. This is either a development area or not a development area.
LORD RHODES: But the noble Lord would agree that when a development area becomes prosperous it is a waste of money to pour more money in.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: Certainly. Perhaps the noble Lord has not quite seen my point. It is a waste of money to pour more money in. Therefore, the way one stops pouring money in is to remove it from the list of development areas. But that is bad luck on the firm which went there in the six months before the decision is taken.
LORD RHODES: I will take the noble Lord's second point first: that in relation to Bridlington. When it was decided that Bridlington, which had been a development district, should be de-listed, eight months' notice was given about this de-listing. Unless we had taken special powers to do this in relation to Bridlington, all that the Bridlington people would have got would have been the 20 per cent. investment grant. As Bridlington enjoyed the facility of the 10 per cent. grant for machinery under the 1963 Act, unless special provision had been made they would have been worse off than hitherto.
It can be argued, of course, that they may be 10 per cent. worse off in relation

1537
to the total of 40 per cent. in a development area proper. But what has been done is this regard? Not only was eight months' notice given, but the Board of Trade has taken the trouble to get in touch with every single firm affected in Bridlington, and to ask them if they realised the advantages which were open to them. It may not be in the noble Lord's knowledge that, since they were told about the de-listing eight months ago, they have had at their disposal the means by which they can apply to the Board of Trade for assistance under the 1963 Act. This Bill is an enormous departure from what has happened before. What happened before was that when the status of an area was changed from a development status, whether it be a district or not, it meant that assistance had to be offered and that it had the advantages of being a development district. This is a very complex and difficult problem, and I should be very pleased if the conversation opposite could be ended.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: I am listening.
LORD RHODES: Under the old Act assistance had to be offered if the applicant took advantage of the scheme after the time limit was imposed. Now, under the new Bill, if an application is received for assistance under the 1963 Act—and this is, so to speak, before the datum line—it will have just as good a chance of being granted as if the Order for the ending of the development district or area had never been made. Is that quite clear to the noble Lord?
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: Yes.
LORD RHODES: That is what has been done for Bridlington. Let me deal with the second one. We agree 100 per cent. that a firm should be certain about its future and should be aware of the way in which things are going, so far as it possibly can be. An industrialist needs to have the sense of security that he is not going to be let down. What is suggested in this Amendment is that there should be a period of three years during which benefits should remain available for certain firms; that is to say, just to those firms which have gone to the development area four years prior to the datum line.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: I hope the noble Lord will give way. Perhaps
1538
I did not make it quite clear that if a firm has gone there four years before it does not get any benefit. It is only, so to speak, the late arrivals which have been there for the last four years which will get a continuing benefit up to a maximum period of four years altogether as being resident in a development district.
LORD RHODES: Yes, of course; that is as clear as crystal. I know that. What the Amendment says is that the benefits in relation to the three-year period after the datum line should apply to firms which went to the development area within four years before that time.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: I will accept that.
LORD RHODES: Both figures are arbitrary. Our method of doing it is far more generous and far more equitable, as I will prove in a moment. The principles upon which we are working—and this exploration we are having will not do any harm and will make the matter clear—is to ensure that the industrialist gets the assistance he needs in order to complete his projects. He wishes to make provision for the event-utility that a development area may cease. If a project has been substantially entered into and commitments have been made either for the building or for the machinery, then the agreement stands.
The noble Lord from his experience knows as well as I do, and probably better, that many projects are started and continue for many years before the machinery is obtained and a place has been built to house it, and a substantial part of the project would consist of buying land to put the building on. We say that the project will be considered to have been undertaken when a substantial portion of the assets required have been contracted for. In the case of assistance under the Local Employment Acts applications are normally made well before the expenditure is incurred and usually before a project is undertaken. In regard to this assistance we shall therefore be taking power to deal with applications which are made before a place ceases to be a development area.
I believe—and I will try to prove it to the noble Lord—that our method is better

1539
than what is suggested in the Amendment. First, under our provisions it may be that some payments would be made after the three-year period prescribed in the Amendment. A substantial portion of the contract may have been entered into just before the time laid down, and in that case it could run after three years. Secondly, the Amendment discriminates harshly between firms which have been in the development area for over four years and those which have been in the area for under four years. Why discriminate between firms in that way? If there is any sense in having a development area at all—and everybody is agreed that there is sense in it—then the firms which have been there for over four years are as entitled to make their contribution to the removal of unemployment as anybody else. This is an unnecessary and arbitrary form of discrimination.
What has been emphasised by my noble friend Lord Shepherd so often in this discussion is that projects are advanced without people having any idea of what the cost is going to be and how much they will increase the need for capital funds. Government money would be spent to encourage expansion in an area which the Government had decided no longer needed special measures. What is the point in still pouring money into a place when the Government decide that it is not necessary? Instead of encouraging people to go where industry is not needed, it should be used to encourage firms to go somewhere else, thereby helping a new development area. There is another point, too, which "knocks this Amendment for six", and it is this. It may be that the noble Lord intends that his transitional period should be in addition to, and not instead of, the provisions which are already in the Bill. Are they in addition?
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: They would form part of the Bill.
LORD RHODES: They would form part of the Bill in addition. This is interesting, because the noble Lord moves the deletion of subsection (8), but not of subsection (4) of Clause 21, or the relevant passages in Schedule 1. If he intends this addition—and he mentioned the seven-year period, so I presume he does—
1540
the objection is greatly reinforced, because there will be a lot of forestalling. A man will have the three years after the time of de-scheduling, and perhaps two years and nine months after he would be able to say, "I want to be able to put down a project again ", in an area which did not need it and where public money would be wasted. If the noble Lord is exploring, as I think he is, the general attitude of the Board of Trade to this matter, that is one thing. But I can assure him that we cannot accept this Amendment, because it would get us into a lot of trouble and would be a waste of public funds.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: I thank the noble Lord for his full explanation, and for the fact that he has gone into such detail about the Amendment. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23—[Restrictions or conditions attached to certificates.]
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I ask a question on Clause 23, which seems to give considerable additional powers to the President of the Board of Trade in granting I.D.C.s, and to some extent seems to be going into the field of the planning authority? In particular, subsection (3) says:
"Conditions may be attached to a…certificate for requiring the removal of any building or the discontinuance of any use of land to which the certificate relates at the end of a specified period".
This has normally been a condition which the planning authority has dealt with, and it would be helpful to the Committee to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, what the thought is here, and what is the experience of the Board of Trade which has persuaded them that they should take these additional powers to extend their control over I.D.C.s. I make the point advisedly, and I am sure the noble Lord takes the point, that with planning consents there is a well-established machinery of appeal. With I.D.C.s, of course, there is no such machinery therefore it is most desirable in the interests of

1541
industry that the degree to which the President extends his control over I.D.C.s should not go further than is absolutely necessary for sound and understandable practicable reasons. I should be most grateful for some explanation.
LORD RHODES: I will give the noble Lord an explanation with pleasure. Before this Bill, a firm could buy a piece of land, get an I.D.C. and use it to get planning permission. Then it did not need to do anything about it and could let it lie. But what has happened? I am very glad that the noble Lord has mentioned this, and I hope he will mention a few more points on this sort of subject. The planning permission has laid there in an office, but it has carried with it very valuable assets. Then somebody has come along, looked at the land and wanted to buy it in order to put up a factory, so up has gone the price and people have paid "through the nose" for it. That has caused inflation, and people have been getting plenty of profit out of that.
Now we are stopping that, and under this Bill an I.D.C. is issued with conditions written in. Although the I.D.C. lapses when planning permission is obtained, under this Bill we shall have those conditions carried through into the planning permission. The conditions are set out in subsection (3). There have been occasions, which I could quote (but the hour is getting too late), where such an example as I gave have happened, and I think the noble Lord will agree that this is a necessary stopping-up of a loophole which in the past has contributed to quite a lot of inflation, as this country knows.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I should not myself have thought that planning authorities were quite so lax as he implies, but I do not disagree with what he is suggesting. However, I should have thought that the planning authorities would normally not have been "taken for a ride" in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
LORD RHODES: That is the whole reason for putting in this clause, and the noble Lord did not know. I have told him the reason, and if he expresses any doubt about it I will give him chapter and verse.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should be interested.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

THE CASE OF JAMES HANRATTY
7.40 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL rose to call attention to the case of James Hanratty, who was convicted in 1962 of the murder of Michael Gregsten at Deadman's Hill on the A6, and duly executed; to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up an independent commission to inquire into the confession of the said murder made by Peter Louis Alphon, and to consider any further information which may have become available since the conviction of James Hanratty, and to report whether, in their opinion, there are any grounds for thinking that there has been any miscarriage of justice in the conviction of James Hanratty for that murder; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to make it clear from the outset, and put the matter beyond any doubt, that I am not asking your Lordships to retry the A6 murder case. I hope this may save some of your Lordships getting up to tell me, as I have often heard before, that once a case has been tried in a criminal court, and an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal has been turned down, then (unless, of course, there is some reason to go to the House of Lords on a matter of law) there is nothing further that can be done. Whilst I do not necessarily accept that, because I think it is an over-simplification, I do not propose to enter into the argument to-day, because it has no relevance whatsoever to my Motion.
Another thing I hope is that on this occasion no one will accuse me of impropriety for bringing this Motion before your Lordships' House simply because a similar Motion was discussed in another place, almost exactly two years ago, on a Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, then a Member of another place, before he came to join us here. In my submission, there are

1543
ample reasons for bringing the matter up before your Lordships' House and for asking that a commission he appointed—and those reasons I propose to give to your Lordships in due course.
Some of your Lordships may have observed that my original Motion was slightly different in wording from that which appears to-day. It referred to the confession by "another person", whereas now, your Lordships may have noticed, it refers to "the confession…by Peter Louis Alphon". Perhaps I should explain the reason for the change. I discussed this matter with the noble Lord who is going to reply and, after we had talked about it, I came to the conclusion that there was no point in not mentioning the name in the Motion, for this reason. During the debate in another place, he was referred to throughout as "Mr. X", but on the following morning, in one of the London newspapers, the Daily Sketch, right across the front page, there was the heading:
"I'm Mr. X says Alphon".
His identity is now common knowledge, and there seems to me, therefore, to be no valid reason for keeping up a mystery which no longer exists.
Now in that report, which was the report of an interview which he had with two of the Daily Sketch journalists, he said that he was Alphon, and he said:
"I don't deny it—I am Mr. X. That must be obvious to everybody. But I did not make a confession. If one exists, it is a forgery. I did make some notes on the Hanratty case but they were stolen."
I shall be dealing later with that statement.
"These could, I suppose, be considered—in some perverted way—a confession. After all I went to the police and satisfied them"—
that did not mean that he went to the police afterwards, but that he had gone to the police, because, your Lordships may remember, he was the first suspect in this case—
"and I am still suing them for wrongful arrest".
He also said this:
"A few hours ago I did not know whether there was to be an inquiry or not, but I was not worried. I just wish to heavens that an inquiry could be held".
My Lords, I am quite certain that an inquiry can be held now, should the
1544
Home Secretary decide that it is in the interests of justice and, indeed, in the interests of Mr. Alphon himself that such a course is desirable; and the object of my Motion on the Order Paper is to try to put forward a number of reasons why I think this should be done.
I have already made it quite clear that, although I myself am persuaded that Han-ratty was not properly convicted upon the evidence at the trial, I am not going to refer to that to-day. The only two references to the trial itself that I shall have to make will arise when I am dealing with certain things which were said in the debate in another place by the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, which enabled him to say that he thought it was
"impossible that Mr. X could have been the murderer…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 682, col. 831; 2/8/63.]
I have, of course, given the noble Lord due notice that I am going to deal to-day with certain parts of his speech, and I am sure we are all very much looking forward to his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. If I might leave for a moment the austerity of your Lordships' House and go to the more congenial atmosphere of the race-course, I should like to say that, although this is his maiden race, I know perfectly well that he has been trained up to the minute, but I hope he will not mind my saying that I hope he is pipped at the post, even though it may be by a short head.
As I have said, I do not propose to go into that part of the case, but I also do not propose to read out to your Lordships in detail the confession that is said to have been made by this man. It was in the form of voluminous notes dealing with the full details of the long journey, which, as some of your Lordships may remember, began in a cornfield not far from Maidenhead, or near Taplow, at 9.30 in the evening, and ended up about 2.30 the next morning at a place called Deadman's Hill, seven miles south of Bedford, with the murdering of Gregsten and the raping and seriously wounding of the girl who was with him in the car, Miss Valerie Storie.
I do not think anyone has ever suggested that these notes were a forgery, and what was said by the Home Secretary in reply to Mr. Brockway (as he then was) was that there was nothing in the

1545
confession that Alphon could not have known by reading the reports of the Han-ratty trial in the national Press, and that it could not possibly have been a true confession because Alphon had a complete alibi and at the time of the murder was occupying a room at the Vienna Hotel—which is in Maida Vale, I think—and could not, therefore, have been on Deadman's Hill when Gregsten was killed.
Mr. Brockway pointed out that this alibi rested solely on the evidence of a man called Nudds, who was the manager of the Vienna Hotel, and who, when giving evidence at the trial, admitted he was a liar, to which Mr. Brooke replied—and when I say "to which Mr. Brooke replied", I mean replied to what Mr. Brockway had said, and not to what Mr. Nudds had said—
"The main thing about the evidence of Nudds is that he made three statements, and he gave evidence after. The jury accepted, and I have no reason whatever to doubt, that the first and third statements were true and that the second statement, which he admitted was a fabrication, was untrue. There is also the evidence from the hotel register, and so forth, very convincing evidence."(col. 829.)
In regard to that statement I should like to say this. I do not myself know, I cannot understand, how it was that the Home Secretary could have known for certain that the jury accepted the third statement in preference to the second statement. Having regard to what Nudds said when cross-examined by Mr. Sherrard, who was the defence counsel in this case, I cannot conceive that any reasonable jury could have believed either the second or the third statement unless one of them was corroborated by reliable, independent evidence; and the Court of Criminal Appeal said that they did not consider the verdict unreasonable, having regard to the evidence.
I think it is much more likely that they convicted Hanratty for a number of other reasons, including Valerie Storie's evidence of identification—although she had, of course, as your Lordships know, identified some other person on a previous identification parade—possibly the evidence of a man called Langdale, who said that Hanratty had confessed to him in Brixton gaol, and the fact that Hanratty had very foolishly lied about his first alibi. But it is not correct to say that the hotel register, such as it was, cor-
1546
roborated the third statement; because, in fact, it corroborated, if it corroborated anything, the second statement.
I am afraid that in order to clarify this to your Lordships I shall have to deal with the evidence of Mr. Nudds fully. I hope your Lordships will pardon me if I do so. In fact, he made three statements. The first is of no consequence because it referred only to the fact that Hanratty himself had slept in Room No. 24 on August 21. That was the night before these events took place which led to the murder. There was no dispute about this. The only relevance that that first statement had was that it was in that same room, about seven days after the murder, that two cartridge cases were found which happened to be of the same calibre as the murder weapon.
Nudds's second statement alleged that Alphon had not spent the night of the 22nd in his room; and the statement was put to him by Mr. Sherrard in his cross-examination. Nudds said in cross-examination that he and his wife sat up, late that evening watching television. They were in the lounge, from where they could see or hear anyone entering or leaving the hotel. But at two o'clock in the morning they decided to go to bed. By that time, only one guest staying in the hotel had not returned. That was a Mr. Durrant. Durrant is the same person as Alphon; because Alphon, when he signed in and took room No. 24, gave the name of Durrant. Before he went out, because room No. 24 was a double room (exactly the same room in which Hanratty had stayed the night before) Durrant had asked for a single room. Before Nudds and his wife—her name was Mrs. Snell but she was living with him as his wife—went to bed, Nuddsleft a note on top of the pen tray at the reception desk, and left the light on over it so that it could be seen. This is what the note said:
"I have been able to change your room to a single, No. 6. Herewith the key to the door. Manager."
Nudds went on to say that the following morning he and his wife got up at seven o'clock and went to the kitchen to prepare breakfast for the guests. At eight o'clock his wife went upstairs to the dining room to serve the breakfasts. Nudds remained in the kitchen until 9.50 a.m. when his wife came down and said

1547
that everybody had had breakfast except Durrant.
Nudds then continued, and I quote from the official transcript of the trial:
"I went upstairs, knocked at the door of No. 6 but got no reply so I opened the door with my pass key and looked inside the room. I saw Mr. Durrant standing by the bed pulling on his trousers. I asked him if he wanted any breakfast. He appeared to be agitated and said, 'No, I don't want any. 'I asked him what time did he return last night and he said, 'Eleven p.m.' I left the room and went back to my wife in the dining room and said, 'No. 6 does not want any breakfast. It looks as if he has been drinking last night. He told me he came in at eleven p.m.'"
What she said in reply to that is, I think, very significant; because she said this:
"He could not"—
that means he could not have come in at eleven p.m.—
"or we should have seen him. He could not have got our note then and would not have been in No. 6 now."
When this second statement was put to Nudds by Mr. Sherrard—and again I am quoting from the official transcript—this is what Nudds said:
"I cannot keep admitting I am a liar. I am a liar. I have lied right through, except for the last time here on oath."
Nudds was then asked to explain why he had made this false statement, the second statement, and why he subsequently withdrew it. He gave this explanation:
"I am a man with a criminal record and since I left prison I have been going straight."
As a matter of fact, he did not go straight for long, because eight months after this he was sent to prison for six years on a charge of fraud. He went on:
"In order to keep straight I have always wanted to help the police with information. When they came to the Vienna Hotel making inquiries about the murder I jumped to the conclusion that they wanted Durrant for the murder. After I and my wife had made our first statements, the police continued to question us and when we had said that Durrant had stayed that night in Room No. 6 this information did not fit in with their investigations. It was then that I decided that I could do myself a good turn by helping the police in an important job by giving them the information they appeared to want."
He then made the second statement. However, later, after being further questioned by the police, he thought the matter over and told his wife that it would be necessary for them both to make an-
1548
other statement. He then withdrew the second statement and told his wife what he had said in the third statement, because, he said, he had to make sure that she knew it well before she went to the Yard to make her statement.
Your Lordships may think, after what I have told you, that what Mr. Sherrard said in his closing speech about Nudds's evidence was not far from the mark. Some of your Lordships, at any rate, will think it was not unjustified. He said:
"Mr. Swanwick suggested in his opening,"—
Mr. Swanwick was the leading counsel for the prosecution—
"and I agree with him. 'Do not rely on Nudds unless there is documentary corroboration available'."
He went on to say:
"The only documents available corroborated statement No. 2. Of that there can be no doubt."
That, in my submission, should dispose once and for all of the complete alibi, beyond challenge, which the Home Secretary said made it impossible that Alphon could have been on Deadman's Hill at the time of the murder. I should have thought that that alone makes it imperative, in everybody's interests, that this should be inquired into. That I think is the real crux of the case.
I intend, with your Lordships' permission, to mention three other things that were stated by the Home Secretary as reasons for dismissing Alphon's confession as spurious. First, he stated that there was nothing in it which Alphon could not have learned from listening to the trial (which, in fact, he attended) or by reading the newspaper reports. It is perfectly true that a lot of it could have been obtained in this way. But there is one thing I am quite sure could not have been obtained in that way: that was the exact position of the cornfield, at a place called Marsh Lane, where all of this thing started at 9.30 by the murder of Gregsten with Valerie Storie in the car. The exact location of it was not mentioned at the trial; it was not mentioned in the Press.
One evening Alphon took two men, whose names I shall mention in a moment, along in a car and took them directly to this field. I have myself been to the field and I can assure your Lordships it is not a field to which you could take anybody directly unless you had

1549
already been there and knew it. If you go down the lane there are a number of fields; and they all look the same. But he took these men directly to this field and then described what happened. In the debate in another place the Home Secretary referred to these two men. One of them was a Mr. John Justice, whom he described as a business man, and the other a Mr. Fox, a member of the Bar. He also described the business man as a heavy drinker. I do not know exactly what was the object of that remark: but, anyway, I am pleased to tell your Lordships that that heavy drinker has for the past three years been a teetotaller. I do not know what is meant by the remark. In any event, no such allegation is made against Mr. Fox.
I may also mention that it was the voluminous notes which really formed the basis of the confession; although I will tell your Lordships later it was added to on subsequent occasions by remarks in telephone calls. The original voluminous notes were handed by Alphon to Mr. Justice in the presence of Mr. Fox on May 15 (that was about a little over a month after Hanratty's execution) in the Imperial Hotel in Russell Square. Of course, if there were to be an inquiry they would be two very important witnesses and the Commission of Inquiry would be able to see them and judge how reliable they are.
The second point which the Home Secretary mentioned referred to something in the confession of Alphon: that he was at the greyhound races at Slough on August 22 and that he left immediately after the 9 o'clock race—that was, about five minutes past nine in the evening in which a dog he was interested in called "Mentals Only Hope" was running—a strange name. He then, according to the Home Secretary, walked to Taplow and from there to the field. The Home Secretary said that this could not have been done in half-an-hour, and of course it could not have been done in half-an-hour on "Shanks's pony". I know the road; it is 6½miles from Slough to the field. But it certainly could have been done had he got a lift in a car, or even taken a bus. On the main road from Slough to Maidenhead, and about a mile before you get to Taplow, which is on the road to Maidenhead, is the Marsh Lane.
There is certainly ample evidence that Alphon frequently attended the greyhound races and certainly it also happens to be quite true that "Mentals Only Hope" did run in that race. It is also interesting to know that the Station Inn at Taplow, which is only about a mile, as I have said, from the corn field, is the place where Gregsten and Miss Valerie Storie frequently used to spend the evening before going out for one of their evening rides in cars, and that Mrs. Lanz, who is the wife of the landlord of the Old Station Inn at Taplow, whom I have myself interviewed, certainly remembers (and has told the police a long time ago that she does remember) that Alphon was at the Old Station Inn on the night of the 21st. She is not quite sure whether he was there on the night of the 22nd, but he frequently used to go there.
The third point, and this is the only other one I am going to mention, because I think the one dealing with the alibi is the most important—another point made by the Home Secretary was this—and again I quote from column 829 of Hansard for August 2:
"At the time of the murder Mr. X could not drive a car. He had never held anything more than a provisional driving licence, and that was a number of years before."
He went on to say:
"It is quite inconceivable that Mr. X could have been the man who drove the car that night after the murder, from seven miles south of Bedford until the car was seen in Ilford some hours later."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Commons, Vol. 682, col. 829; 2/8/63.]
My Lords, again I feel I must say that there is nothing whatever in this point. Indeed, if it does anything, it confirms the fact that it could not have been Hanratty who drove away in Gregsten's car after leaving Valerie Storie seriously wounded.
As the Home Secretary also stated, Hanratty was able to drive a car. He was, as many people are prepared to say, a competent driver. Gregsten's car, the one that was seen near Ilford the following morning round about 7 o'clock, was being very badly driven and that is why it was drawn to the attention of another witness at the trial, Mr. Skillett. He said at the trial that just as he was approaching some traffic lights, and slowing down because the lights were against him, the car came along on his left,

1551
swung across his bows, skidded, and very nearly hit another car in front. Mr. Skillett said then that he tried to overtake the car, and managed to do so, because he wanted to give the driver a piece of his mind. And he did give him a piece of his mind. He asked his passenger to turn down the window and he shouted out through the window, "Are you f—ing mad or something? You ought to get off the f—ing road. "Excuse the language, my Lords. I dare say that Mr. Skillett was very annoyed at the time, and that rather expressed his feelings. The driver of the other car, he said, stared for a second or so and just laughed, and as the traffic was going on he just pulled off.
There is one other thing with regard to that point which was made by the Home Secretary—
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, he is continually referring to the "Home Secretary". Am I right in thinking that up till now in the course of his speech he has been referring always to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor?
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make that clear. I did say originally "Lord Brooke of Cumnor". I did not think that either the House or the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, would mind my calling him the Home Secretary, as he was at that time; and of course, I thought it was also quite clear to your Lordships that I was dealing with that time and that I am still dealing with that time. However, I am sorry.
The other point I wanted to mention about this same remark, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who was at that time Mr. Brooke, and was then the Home Secretary in Her Majesty's Government and who said it in another place (I hope that now explains it quite fully) is this. It is hardly likely, even though Alphon was a bad driver, that if he had wanted to get away from the scene of the murder quickly it would really have worried him very much that he was not in possession of a driving licence. In his
1552
evidence Mr. Skillett said what I have just told your Lordships. He identified Hanratty as the driver of the car, but his passenger, Black all, who was, in fact, nearer the car than Mr. Skillett was, did not identify Hanratty at all. There are also, in respect of that, two independent witnesses who have seen Alphon drive a car, and they are both prepared to say that he is a very bad driver. So much for the other three reasons which I have just dealt with for dismissing the confession; three of the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for dismissing the confession as entirely without credibility.
My Lords, that is not the whole of the story. Other strange things have happened since the debate in another place in August, 1963, which, in my submission, reinforce the necessity for holding an inquiry. I expect that some of your Lordships may know that I wrote a book about this case which was published last October. I hope, as our proceedings are not yet being televised, that I shall not get into trouble and be told that I am trying to advertise the book. As soon as it was announced in the Press that I was writing the book I began to receive—and this went on for many months—a number of telephone calls, in which I was threatened, among other things. About a week before the publication of the book those calls ceased, and then the person who was calling began to telephone Mr. Fred Warburg, of the firm publishing the book.
The man who made these calls certainly fitted the description by Superintendent Acott (he was the police officer in charge of the case) of the murderer as being erratic and excitable; for he frequently threatened me, shouting "I will come and do you in", and at other times he spoke in a quiet voice. He told me on several occasions, "I got away with murder, didn't I? "Perhaps I ought to interpolate here (because your Lordships may wonder why I went on talking to him) that I was asked by the police to do this so that they could get through on another telephone and try to trace the calls. On another occasion, the same man asked, "Who do you think committed the murder?" I said that it was not for me to say, but I was sure that Hanratty had not. He replied, "There is no third party, don't you know—it is

1553
either him or me. At any rate Hanratty was expendable." He also said that the police would not take any action against him because he was protected by them.
I knew the identity of the caller. It was this man Aiphon, mentioned in the Motion, and I can produce evidence to prove his identity which I am sure would be accepted in any court. All these calls were reported to the police during those months, and they were reported by Scotland Yard to the present Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, and to his immediate predecessor, to whom I gave notice that I was going to mention this to-day. But no action has been taken to prosecute the caller.
When I first asked that some action should be taken I received a letter endeavouring to discourage me from taking further action, though it was said that I could do it myself, and though it was admitted in the letter that there was satisfactory evidence of the identification of the caller. I was told that the police authorities did not think that it would be a good thing for them to prosecute because—and I quote:
"if we prosecuted it would have been open to a defence construction that you had enlisted police assistance primarily to gain publicity for your forthcoming book on the A6 murder."
I know that some noble Lords have not a very good opinion of me, but I hope that no one of your Lordships will think that I would stoop quite so low as that. But that is one of the reasons I was given. I think that it causes one to think a little about this. The last reason I was given was:
"There continues to be great difficulty in tracing the man who makes these calls. He is believed to be in North London and inquiries are being made in this area. His exact whereabouts are unknown. What further action could he taken when he is traced would very much depend on what facts are established when the police find him."
Mr. Warburg was also threatened and it was obvious from the conversation—we have compared notes—that the person was trying to stop him from publishing the book.
Before I finish, my Lords, I want to mention another case—there have been quite a number of them—in which a person, after the conviction of another man for murder, confessed to having committed it. This case, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will
1554
remember, was one in which Walter Graham Rowland was convicted in 1946 of murdering a woman called Olive Balchin by attacking her with a hammer and hitting her on the head a number of times. Shortly after he was convicted, a man called Ware confessed to the Governor of Walton Jail, Liverpool, that he had committed this murder. As a result art inquiry was held, presided over by a Mr. Jolly.
At the inquiry, Ware withdrew the confession, but a great deal of other evidence was given, and the court of inquiry reported that there was no reason to believe that Ware could possibly have committed the murder. But what happened a few years later is rather disturbing. Four years later, Ware was found guilty, but insane, of the attempted murder of a woman whom he had hit on the head with a hammer many times, though, fortunately for her, she recovered. Ware gave himself up to the Bristol police and then said: "I don't know what is the matter with me. I keep on having an urge to hit women on the head. "Who killed Olive Balchin? No one will ever know. Did Rowland or Ware murder her? No one will ever learn. A jury found Rowland guilty on the evidence which was given at his trial, but there will always remain a doubt about it, and it is inconceivable that to-day a reasonable jury would convict upon the evidence as it is now known.
For this reason I hope that your Lordships will perhaps agree that an inquiry should now be held to investigate the matter set out in my Motion. Whatever the result, it will be too late to save Hanratty from the gallows, but surely that is no reason for refusing an inquiry. I appreciate as well as anybody else in your Lordships' House the heavy responsibility which falls upon any Home Secretary placed in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who had to decide whether he should set up an inquiry or, as in this case, refuse to do so. Now that the death penalty has been abolished, there is an equally heavy responsibility, though perhaps not such an agonising one.
I am not suggesting that the present Home Secretary should set up a commission of inquiry in order to evade this responsibility, but I do say, and say

1555
sincerely, that this matter is so complex and so important that a decision should not be made until the Home Secretary has had an opportunity of studying the report of a commission of inquiry whose members have heard all the evidence now available. The present Home Secretary has informed me that he still has an open mind on this question and that he will not come to a final decision until he has studied what has been said during this debate. I hope that what is said here to-night will cause him to decide that an inquiry should now be held. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
8.19 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of your Lordships on two counts. This is the first time I have ventured to address your Lordships' House, and though I have not been unaccustomed to speaking in another place I well realise that the standards of behaviour here are more exacting. Secondly, no one of his own free choice would wish to make a maiden speech on so tragic, so macabre, a subject as this. But as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has referred to several passages in a speech of mine three years ago in another place, I feel that your Lordships might think it somewhat strange if I sat silent throughout this debate and volunteered no contribution at all to the discussion. I might, indeed, be taken as assenting to everything the noble Lord has said.
Hanratty was executed in April, 1962. It was not until three months afterwards that I became Home Secretary, when I succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. It became my duty to make a close study of all the facts of this case, in view of the allegations that a terrible miscarriage of justice had taken place. Of course, I in my present position can claim no special knowledge of later events or any fresh information that may have come to light since the time that I left the Home Office. But I am bound to tell your Lordships that, although I started my study of all the information that was available at the time with a completely open mind, with no pre-judgment and no previous commitment to any point of view, I ended by being entirely convinced that the so-called confession was a spurious one.
1556
To your Lordships, it may seem fantastic that anyone should voluntarily and untruthfully declare himself to be a murderer. But the records in the Home Office show that this is by no means uncommon. One can only speculate at the queer motives of a man who makes a false confession of murder. But some of the people involved in this particular story were, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said in another place, queer people—decidedly queer. This particular confession that we have been discussing was not, in fact, the only confession to the murder of Mr. Gregsten that was received. Two other confessions of the same murder actually reached the Home Office. But they were anonymous, and although the police made every effort to discover their authors, they were unsuccessful.
One particular test of the genuineness of a confession, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, realises, is to see whether it contains an account of anything that happened which proves to be true and which could not have been known to the author of the confession from any source except his own personal experience. Despite what the noble Lord has said this evening, the confession by this man to have murdered Mr. Gregsten, in my judgment, contained no new fact or piece of information of such a character that it could not have been picked up by attending the trial of Hanratty or reading the newspapers. This man attended the trial and he certainly read the newspapers. Incidentally, newspapers and Press cuttings, with references to the case marked in red ink, were found strewn about his room, along with the notes which were afterwards produced as the confession.
The noble Lord said that there was one thing which must have come from this man's own personal knowledge. This was that he led the other two people direct to the field where the meeting had taken place. But surely the noble Lord will agree that by the time of this incident the location was known to a great many people. And, indeed, it was said by one of his companions, at a much earlier stage, about that visit: "I cannot honestly remember who suggested we should stop where we did". It really seems a thin argument to suggest that

1557
the fact that the three of them did stop at a particular place proved that the person who is said to have made this confession had unique knowledge of the location which he could not have gained from anyone else.
It is quite true that at an early stage of the police investigations he had been suspected of the crimc. It is quite true, as the noble Lord said just now, that I said in another place that he had a complete alibi for the night of the murder. I still think that he had a complete alibi: and my reading of the proceeding sat the trial certainly suggested that it was accepted by the jury that he had an alibi. Certainly they convicted Hanratty. I think they convicted Hanratty rightly. While the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made some reference to the proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal, he did not quote the statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice of England on that occasion, when he said:
"The Court is of opinion that this was a clear case."
According to the man's subsequent confession, or pretended confession, he left Slough greyhound racing stadium at a time which can be established as five minutes past nine in the evening, because that was a time when a particular dog with an odd name had just run. He said that he walked out into the country—he did not say anything about taking a bus—and stopped at a pub. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, will agree, if he had done this walk, stopped at a public house at Taplow, and then walked on to the field where he came upon Miss Storie and Mr. Gregsten sitting in a car, that would have been a walk of some 7½ miles. It is clearly quite absurd to suppose that, if the statement in his confession—that he walked—is true, he could have done it within a period of 25 minutes, because it was established that it was at half-past nine in the evening that the murderer surprised the two of them in the car.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, also questioned the argument that I had based on this man's ability to drive a car. What we know is that the murderer forced Mr. Gregsten to drive the car from the neighbourhood of Taplow to the neighbourhood of Bedford. He then murdered him, and raped and
1558
grievously wounded Miss Storie. He then took the car and drove it right round North London to Ilford, where it was spotted. This is quite an extensive and complicated cross-country journey, undertaken at night. In my view, it is a fact that the man in question could not drive a car at that time; certainly his knowledge of driving could not conceivably have enabled him to drive all that distance through the night without running into anything or anybody until strange driving was detected in Ilford.
My Lords, my investigation ranged over a great deal more which I will not go through in detail. There appeared to me to be a number of other facts which cast grave doubts on the genuineness of this confession and helped to prove it spurious. It is known that the murderer had difficulty in pronouncing "th". He pronounced it as "f". It is quite true that in a telephone conversation some time afterwards, when this man was pretending to be the murderer, he pronounced "th" as "f". But long before that, while he was originally under investigation by the police, he was questioned by them for no less than five hours, and there was no indication at all at that time of his inability to pronounce "th". It is quite possible to pretend that you cannot pronounce "th" and to pronounce it as "f", if by that time you know that the actual murderer did have the habit of making that mispronunciation.
Again, not, I think, in the actual confession, but in one of the telephone conversations that are on record, this man claimed that he had known Miss Storie before the fatal night. There is not a shred of evidence that that is true. There is a good deal of evidence that it could not possibly have been true.
These, my Lords, are some of the facts which convinced me that the so-called confession was a spurious one, and that it could not possibly be held to establish the case that there had been a miscarriage of justice, as the noble Lord's Motion suggests. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the present Home Secretary have been through the documents and all the additional information which may now be available with as great care as I gave to what was available at that time.
I must stress that I have no current access to those papers. I can simply

1559
testify to your Lordships that, on all the information available to me as Home Secretary three years ago, I was entirely satisfied that there was nothing which pointed to a miscarriage of justice. If there is more recent information or research which now points to the need for a new inquiry—which would presumably have to be a public inquiry if it was to carry conviction—then so be it. It is always right that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. But I trust that your Lordships will convince yourselves that there really is substance in the arguments for re-opening the case, before pressing Her Majesty's Government to do so.
One may contend that a new inquiry by an independent commission could do some good, and could do no harm. I wonder. Miss Storie, who by a miracle escaped with her life after being raped and shot, would surely have to be one of the principal witnesses at a fresh inquiry. I have never met her, but I cannot help thinking that society, having failed to protect her from a most dreadful crime, owes it to her now that she should have every opportunity to forget that ghastly night and to put it utterly out of her mind, if that be possible. If there be any fresh information which appears to disclose a miscarriage of justice and the need for a fresh inquiry, she must once more face all the anguish and the publicity. I submit to your Lordships that there must be a really strong case made out before your Lordships should press for the murderer's living victim to be subjected to the torture of recollection yet again.
8.34 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, it may seem a little ironical that I should be called upon to acknowledge the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I do so with great sympathy. He has had to-night, I think, the almost unique task of delivering his maiden speech in response to a Motion which refers to his responsibility in another place. It must have been very difficult for him to address this House. He had a long and distinguished service in the London County Council, and he became a member of the Cabinet, and Secretary of State for Home Affairs in
1560
Government. From all that experience, however much we differ from his politics, this House would have welcomed his contributions to the broader aspects of our debates and, because of that, I feel for him that he should have been asked to make his maiden speech on an issue of this kind. I hope very much that he will not feel that these circumstances will prevent his speaking to this House on broader subjects at a very early point.
I should like to express to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, my appreciation of the fact that he has raised this issue to-night. In an earlier debate, I once described him as the Ombudsman of the House of Lords; and I think the fact that he has challenged us on this issue this evening confirms that description. I have been interested in this case from the first, because it was closely associated with the constituency which I represented in another place. Both the victim of the murderer and Miss Valerie Storie, paralysed as a result of the shooting, worked in my constituency. Miss Storie still lives there. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that, because of my associations with those who were my constituents, I certainly should have no desire to bring thoughts of terrible incidents in the past to their living memory again.
But I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and to the Members of this House generally, that one cannot decide the issue as to whether there should be an inquiry into this case on those grounds only: that one must think also not only of the memory of the man who was executed but of those to whom his memory is dear, his parents, whose anguish must be just as deep as that of those who were the victims. Therefore I think we have to put aside, as we are looking at this issue, the moving appeal which the noble Lord made in concluding his speech, and, indeed, the emotional feelings of those who were close and were related to James Hanratty.
My concern to-night is not to indicate that anyone else was guilty of this murder. I should not want any words of mine in this debate to be interpreted in that sense. I am concerned only in speaking now because I think this House, Parliament as a whole, and the Secretary of State for the Home Office more particularly, have a terrible responsibility

1561
when a man has been executed for a crime and there are serious doubts as to whether that man was guilty. We have a responsibility to his memory and to ourselves as a society if there seems to be some doubt as to whether a right decision was reached.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is aware, as Member of Parliament for that constituency I investigated these issues in the greatest detail. I discussed them, as he is aware, with the superintendent responsible at Scotland Yard, and I was very ready indeed, because I had nothing to hide, that a verbatim report should be taken of my discussion with that superintendent and provided to the noble Lord. In addition to that discussion with the superintendent at Scotland Yard I bad discussions with officials at the Home Office, of which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is also aware. I am quite prepared to acknowledge to-night that he will, in the most conscientious way, have looked at all that evidence, but I am bound to say this: that when I re-read the speech which he made concluding the debate which I initiated in another place, I was surprised that a man of his experience, and after that kind of study, should have made such a weak case in rejecting our appeal for an inquiry of that type.
My noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool has with great detail met the only reasons which the noble Lord put forward in another place for rejecting an inquiry. I say all those reasons have fallen down. I will not even put it as strongly as that: I just say to this House that there is such an element of doubt about the reasons which the noble Lord put in another place for rejecting an inquiry that this House to-night has no right—no moral right—to resist the appeal which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has made for an inquiry into this subject.
May I just remind the House of what happened when I first raised this issue in another place? Every speaker except the noble Lord urged that an inquiry should take place: two speakers from the Conservative side of the House, one of them who afterwards became a member of a Conservative Government; another, one of the most respected Members of the House of Commons. On the Labour side of the House, from the Front Bench
1562
of the Labour Party, committing the Labour Party to an inquiry, a speech again by a member who is now a distinguished member of our Government; another speech from another member of the Government who is now in the legal department of the Government, who endorsed the case for an inquiry. Every speech in that debate except the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, supported the case for an inquiry because of the doubts about the decision reached.
I want to put it to my noble friend Lord Stonham, representing the Home Office, that even if there may seem to be some balance of evidence on the basis that this judgment was correct, the element of doubt about it is so great that if our society is to be proved as a just and tolerant society an inquiry should take place. The present Home Secretary was asked publicly if he would hold an inquiry into this case. He replied, publicly, that he would consider it. I have had from him a similar letter to the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has referred, saying that he would reach his decision after the debate in this House. Therefore the responsibility of this House cannot be over-emphasised. It is upon what we say that the Home Secretary will reach a decision. I do not think 1 have even known a moment when I have wanted to speak more persuasively. I just say to my noble friend Lord Stonham that if we are to take pride in our society it must be because we take infinite care that justice is done to any individual. That is the test of a liberal and civilised society. If there is any reasonable doubt that James Hanratty was executed when he did not commit this murder, then the duty of holding an inquiry cannot be shirked.
We have now suspended capital punishment. May I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, if I may, how tremendously I appreciated the speech which he made on this subject, which showed that he had a mind which could change according to evidence. I am only going to ask him this to-night. I believe he has conscientiously looked at this case; I do not believe he can conscientiously say that there is still no reason for doubt. And if there is reasonable grounds for doubt, I put it to our Home Secretary, through my noble friend, Lord Stonham,

1563
that he cannot shirk it. I do not think he would want to shirk it, because I appreciate his liberal attitude. I am going to appeal to him, for the reputation of our country in believing in personal rights, and for justice, to ask that the Government will institute the inquiry for which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has appealed.
8.50 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I wish to say only a few sentences. My reason is the speech to which we have just listened, which suggests that the present Home Secretary may come to his conclusion by looking at what was said in this debate. It might therefore be rather misleading to the Home Secretary, if a word were not said on other matters to which I think he should pay attention. Of course, not having studied this matter at all or read what happened in another place, and not even having had the advantage of hearing the whole of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I do not wish to say anything whatsoever about the merits. All I wish to say is this: that I think one very important matter the Home Secretary must consider—I am sure he will—is that there was a trial before a judge and jury, who came to a conclusion that the accused man was guilty, and that the matter went to the Court of Criminal Appeal, who thought it a perfectly clear case.
Those being the facts, there may be, by a miracle, a case for looking further and having another inquiry; but the burden of proving that must fall on those who allege there is such a case. I hope that the Home Secretary while, of course, if he reads our debate, he will pay most careful attention to what the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Brockway, said, will also consider the plea that I am now making and the most impressive speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I regret that the case has come on at such a late hour, because for many hours the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, was present in this House to-day, but he could not stay for this late debate. I do not know what he would have said, but I am sure that he would have been present to give us the benefit of his advice, had the debate come on earlier. That is all I wish to say.
8.55 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to add to the gracious words of my noble friend Lord Brockway, my own mead of thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on his maiden speech in your Lordships' House, and I hope he will not regard it as inappropriate that the first speech from the Front Bench on the Government side should come from a Home Office Minister, however junior I may be. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has an experience in government which I imagine is scarcely surpassed in this House, because he had almost a lifetime of experience in local government before achieving eminence at Westminster. I recall that he was the Chief Secretary of the Treasury before becoming Home Secretary. I am sure that we all look forward to many contributions from him, arising from his great and varied experience over the whole gamut of political life.
I am also sure we shall agree on one thing about this debate, and that is that there was not the slightest vestige of impropriety in the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, should raise this case. I am sure it will never be the case in your Lordships' House that we shall be unwilling to listen most carefully to a case on behalf of any individual, alive or dead.
This is an exceptionally complex case, and although I have studied it carefully I would not claim to have in my memory all the many facets to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has referred this evening, although I must confess that most of them are very familiar. This dreadful case, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, illustrate the weight of the burden borne by Home Secretaries in the days of capital punishment. Whatever our views, many noble Lords will share with me a profound sense of relief that one man, the Home Secretary, no longer has to decide these matters of life and death.
The noble Lord's Motion, if I may say so with respect, as distinct from his speech, rightly concentrates on the new material which he says has come to light since Hanratty's conviction. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor,

1565
said, confessions by people other than the accused are by no means unusual particularly in murder cases—indeed, there was more than one in this particular case. And every such confession, I would assure your Lordships, is very carefully examined to see whether there is any substance in it; and that was certainly done in this case. But as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, recognises, the case for reconsidering this conviction, for reopening it, must turn on the strength and validity of such new material as he has adduced, and our evaluation of it must be against the framework of the evidence at the trial on which Hanratty was convicted.
I should like first to give a very brief summary of the case as it stood at the trial. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, Mr. Gregsten, the murdered man, and Miss Storie had stopped their car just off the road in a field near Taplow on the evening of August 22, 1961. A man held them up, took some money, made them drive to the A.6, near St. Albans, where he shot and killed Mr. Gregsten, and raped and shot Miss Storie. He left Miss Storie and drove the car to Ilford, where it was abandoned.
In proving that Hanratty was this man, the prosecution relied on his identification by Miss Storie and on the identification of two men who saw the car between St. Albans and Ilford; on Miss Storie's account of the murderer's appearance and statements; on evidence connecting Han-ratty with the places where the gun used in the murder, and its cartridges, were found; and on a report by a prisoner that Hanratty, in prison on remand, had told him, in detailed and callous terms, that he had committed the crime. The defence attacked much of this evidence and produced an alibi (which was different from the alibi Hanratty originally gave the police). The trial lasted 21 days, and the jury found Hanratty guilty after a retirement of over 10 hours. The conviction was upheld in the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the Lord Chief Justice said that the Court was of opinion that it was "a clear case".
That is an abbreviated summary, but it will serve to indicate the background. I know that many share the view expressed by the noble Lord in his speech, and in his book, that the jury should not
1566
have convicted on the evidence before them. He has mentioned many points in that evidence, and it would be wrong for me to go over all, or indeed many, of them. That is not the purpose of this discussion to-night. But I should not like your Lordships to think that Lord Russell of Liverpool's review of some of the incidents in the case is accepted. For example, the noble Lord dealt in some detail with the alleged journey of Mr. Alphon from the Slough greyhound track. He said, quite properly, that if Mr. Alphon had gone by bus he might have done so in 25 minutes. But what the noble Lord did not say was that in this alleged statement Alphon him-himself said that he walked.
Then again, the noble Lord had a good deal to say about the three statements of Mr. Nudds, who of course had a criminal record and is now in prison. But he said that the first and third statements of Nudds were not supported by evidence. In fact, the hotel register shows that Alphon booked into room 6, and not room 24 where Hanratty slept and where the cartridges had been found. However much of a liar Nudds may have been, there is no suggestion that he knew of the murder that night, and therefore for some reason could have falsified the record in advance.
But, my Lords, we are not here tonight to reopen this case and have a retrial. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, devoted the major part of his speech to a review of the evidence, all of which was before the jury, and all of which was considered. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that we really are not concerned with that now. As the noble Lord, Lord Cones ford, so rightly pointed out, our judicial system provides a full and careful procedure for testing criminal accusations, and it would be quite wrong for the Home Secretary, or Parliament, to seek to substitute their view for the verdict of a jury on the same facts.
I must make it crystal clear that before any Home Secretary (and no fewer than four different Home Secretaries have had some connection or other with this case) could consider reopening a case, by holding the inquiry for which the noble Lord has asked, or by any other action, he must have before him new material which was not before the jury and which would

1567
justify reopening the case. I listened with the utmost sympathy to the moving speech of my noble friend Lord Brockway, and I listened most carefully for something new, something that I had not read before, because these are terrible cases and one cannot neglect any point that might lead to a different conclusion.
But if we are going to be justified in reopening the case, it must not be just any new material—for new material of some marginal relevance to a case is relatively easy to come by. It must be new material of substance and of real significance. There would be two quite real dangers in applying too lax a test of the strength of the new evidence. First, it is important to maintain the principle of finality in criminal proceedings, and not to allow convictions upheld on appeal to be freely challenged without adequate justification. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, mentioned, we must remember that an inquiry such as the noble Lord wants would almost certainly involve a re-hearing of the evidence at trial, and I am sure we should all hesitate a long time before subjecting Miss Storie to giving evidence again of the tragic and frightening events of the night of the murder. In any event, so far as I can see there would be no power to compel witnesses to attend or take evidence on oath. Let me make one thing clear, however: that if new material warrants it, some cases must be reopened; and I now turn to examine such new material as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool has produced.
At this point I must confess to being in some difficulty. The Home Secretary and I have studied most carefully all the material in the Home Office. I would say that in this case the material is of such magnitude that it would be impossible to bring all the files over here to-night, though I assure your Lordships that the resources of the Home Office are such that arrangements have been made to refer to the files, should any point requiring this have been made. But it was apparent to us from the terms of the noble Lord's Motion, that he had particularly in mind the confession by Mr. Alphon to which he has referred; and of course we have read Lord Russell of Liverpool's book about the trial itself.
1568
But we did not know in detail what information he would adduce this evening, or what arguments he would use to demonstrate the significance of this material, which really boils down to repeated telephone conversations in which Alphon, to use the words of the noble Lord, said that he had "got away with murder".
I would express our deep regret that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and others, should have been annoyed by these most objectionable and, indeed, frightening and worrying telephone calls. But I take exception to the statement or complaint by the noble Lord that no action has been taken to prosecute the callers and that the excuse was made that there has been great difficulty in tracing the men, or the man, making the calls. That is not an excuse. It is an extremely difficult matter, and the police have tried very hard. But I would assure the noble Lord that I have seen all the correspondence which he has had with the Home Secretary, and the Commissioner has assured me that continuous, renewed and vigorous efforts are being made to trace the man who is making these calls. What action is then taken, if we trace him, must depend on what facts are established when we do find him. I would make the point that at this stage at least we do not accept categorically even that the man making the calls is Alphon. Certainly it seems likely, but it is a fact which would have to be conclusively established.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, that is one of the reasons why there should be an inquiry, so that these things can be found out, as they cannot at the moment.
LORD STONHAM: I should have thought that before we could establish that this man has been in fact making the calls, we should have to find him and question him. One would hope that we could do that without an inquiry of the kind required by the noble Lord—not that that is an argument against holding the inquiry he wants.
I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot give a final reply to his request for an inquiry to-night. I will give the position as we see it, and my right honourable friend will study the debate most carefully before he reaches

1569
a final decision. As the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Brockway said, my right honourable friend has not reached a conclusion, and it would clearly have been discourteous to your Lordships' House to have done so before the debate.
Let me deal briefly with the alleged confession of Mr. Alphon. It takes a number of different forms. There are notes on hotel paper—unsigned, but apparently in Mr. Alphon's handwriting—which describe how the writer committed the murder, and his thoughts at the time. There is the noble Lord's statement that Mr. Alphon has confessed to him on the telephone; and there are tape-recordings taken by some friends of Mr. Alphon (to whom I shall refer again) in which a man who appears to he Mr. Alphon hints that he is the murderer. A confession by another man is not necessarily sufficient justification in itself for reopening a case. If it were, a great many cases would be reopened every year. In extensively reported murder cases it is relatively easy for anybody to become sufficiently familiar with the facts of a case to give the appearance of personal knowledge. Each confession has to be examined carefully for real evidence of genuineness. There are a number of difficulties about accepting Mr. Alphon's confession as genuine, quite apart from the fact that it did not take the form of a signed statement.
Comparison has been made, in considering this case and the possibility of an inquiry, between the Hanratty case and the Evans case, but the demand for an inquiry into the Evans case derived almost entirely from the subsequent discovery that Christie, an occupant of the same building, had himself been a multiple murderer over a period spanning the time of the Evans murders, and had confessed to the murder of Mrs. Evans. It was contended that the jury would not have convicted Evans of the murder of his child if they had been aware of this. Mr. Alphon was not called as a witness at the trial of Hanratty, but he featured prominently in it, and defence counsel suggested that he, and not Hanratty, might well have committed the murder. But the jury convicted Hanratty in the full knowledge of this possibility, and after ascertaining that they must be certain of Hanratty's guilt before returning a verdict of guilty.
1570
My noble friend I ord Brockway said that if there is any reasonable doubt that James Hanratty committed this murder there should be an inquiry. So far as the jury were concerned, if there was any reasonable doubt in their minds that he had committed the murder, he should not have been convicted. That is the major difficulty with which the Home Secretary is confronted at present. The only change in the situation from the trial is that Alphon has made some further attempts to implicate himself. But the demand which is now being made is, in effect, that the verdict of the jury in 1962 should be regarded as perverse, and that the defence should have a second opportunity to prove their case.
My noble friend Lord Brockway—and I have every sympathy with him—said that he was not concerned to suggest that anyone else was guilty of that murder. But the Motion before us really does not take that stand. We must bear in mind that Mr. Alphon's involvement in this case was to a large extent an issue at the trial. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has reminded us, Mr. Alphon was at one time regarded by the police as a suspect, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has mentioned that he was interrogated for five hours continuously when he was a suspect. Indeed, the defence argued strongly at the trial that the police did not press their inquiries sufficiently.
Secondly, Mr. Alphon's guilt would be inconsistent at a number of points with firm evidence by Miss Storie, and others, about the characteristics and behaviour of the murderer. At the trial Superintendent Acott gave twelve points of difference, and, while I would not regard them of equal weight, I would mention a point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, about diction and the use of the dipthong "th". Miss Storie's evidence, is that the murderer's Cockney accent impressed itself on her. Indeed, Hanratty spoke with such an accent, and Mr. Alphon, I understand, does not.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I have no wish to go into any of these matters in detail, to reopen the trial and so on, but I do not know how it is that the noble Lord says that

1571
Mr. Alphon does not speak with a Cockney accent.
LORD STONHAM: I have not met the gentleman myself, but I am advised that he does not. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is aware, the police and others have had many conversations with him.
Lastly, I would refer to Mr. Alphon's alibi for the night of the murder. I recognise that this, as has been said, depends partly on the evidence of the hotel manager, Mr. Nudds, who has a criminal record, and who made one statement to the police, which was later withdrawn, in which he implicated Mr. Alphon. The only point I want to make is that this, too, was before the jury, and it is difficult to see how they could have convicted Hanratty if they had not accepted the manager's withdrawal of this statement; and, as I have already mentioned, the prosecution produced the hotel register and the receipt book.
The whole crux of the matter which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has to decide and which is really before the House is whether there is anything new in the noble Lord's arguments which have been adduced tonight which was not before the jury at the trial. These statements were not the first evidence the police had in support of Mr. Alphon's alibi. He was seen by them, first on August 27, four days after the murder, when he said that he was with his mother on the evening of the 22nd, the fatal evening, and then went to the hotel. This was verified with the hotel at the time and with his mother.
Finally, the unsigned confession gives times for Mr. Alphon's movements on the evening of the 22nd, which it seems cannot be reconciled with Miss Storie's evidence that the murderer first surprised her and Mr. Gregsten at 9.30 p.m. Apart from the confessions, the other new material has little value, and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would himself claim, if it stood by itself, that it could be regarded as significant. It consists largely of uncorroborated assertions by the two associates of Mr. Alphon whom I mentioned earlier.
1572
I have to come back, therefore, to the test which I posed at the beginning: is there new material of substance and real significance which was not before the jury, or is the real position that any inquiry would in substance be no more than a re-trial of the evidence before the jury? The noble Lord opened his speech by assuring us that he was not asking for a re-trial, but would not the inquiry for which he asks really amount to a trial of Alphon while pretending that it was doing something else? Certainly it cannot be said that there is a clear case for such an inquiry, and I have already mentioned the compelling objections to holding one without sufficient justification—of which the one that must weigh most heavily with all of us is the very real hardship and distress that could be caused to those who would again be caught up in the toils of this terrible murder.
However, my Lords, if on studying this case again there should appear solid reason for thinking that there has been a miscarriage of justice, then no effort must be spared to get at the truth. I can assure your Lordships that in this spirit my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will now anxiously study this debate, and in particular the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and will, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, come to a decision.
9.19 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I should like to follow other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on his maiden speech. I am sure we look forward to hearing from him on many other occasions. I should also like to assure him that I do not think anyone has suggested—and I certainly do not suggest—that when he considered this case he did not do it with complete thoroughness and did not come to a conclusion which he thought was consistent with his conscience.
Not only is the hour late, but it would be quite absurd to go further into all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I am perfectly prepared to leave it as he said: if there is anything

1573
new—and I have tried to show your Lordships that there are certain considerations which are undoubtedly new—there will be a commission of inquiry. I am perfectly prepared to leave it (of course, I have no alternative) to the Home Secretary to consider the matter very carefully, and I sincerely hope that when he has done so he may find that this is a case where there should be an inquiry. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (SEAFORTH WORKS) BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

BUILDING CONTROL BILL DOCKS AND HARBOURS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.