Lords Sitting of 9 August 1966

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield
The Viscount Boyd of Merton—Took the Oath.
The Lord Caradon—Took the Oath.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
2.36 p.m.
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty The Queen signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Asian Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1966 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
"I will comply with your request."

GAS AND ELECTRICITY METERS
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage the installation of gas and electricity meters in locked containers on the outside of new houses and flats.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, Area Gas and Electricity Boards have examined the possible advantages of providing external access to consumers' meters, and in a number of cases, where the additional expense involved has appeared justified by the likely economies and convenience, such arrangements have been introduced in new premises. A major difficulty in introducing them more widely is that they can be applied only
1678
in the case of credit meters; for prepayment meters, the use of which varies between Boards, the need for security against theft and for constant access by the consumer makes external positioning unsuitable. The possible scope for the development of new methods of meter reading is, however, kept under review by the industries.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the enormous amount of time and labour lost by the present archaic method of reading meters inherited by our national industries; whether he is also aware that many invalids and old people resent this intrusion into their privacy, and that there are risks of crime through breaking in and misrepresentation? And can he give the House any statistics as to the relative inefficiency of this method for non-prepayment meters and also the incidence of crime due to this type of misrepresentation?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I regret that without notice I cannot give my noble friend any information with regard to the question of crime or the particular statistics involved in the breaking open of meters. Sometimes, of course, this is done by the householder himself. But I can assure him that, so far as credit meters are concerned, the Area Gas Boards encourage the installation of such meters wherever possible, and indeed in some areas they do so with new developments free of charge. But he will understand, I hope, that this can be done only with credit meters, and that many of the elderly people he mentioned of course have coin meters.

FRONT GATE LETTER-BOXES
2.38 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage the installation of letter-boxes near the front gates, rather than in the front doors, of private dwelling-houses.]
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Postmaster

1679
General is anxious to develop garden-gate delivery, but so far it has not been favoured by residents, for a variety of reasons. The possibilities are nevertheless being pursued.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that a very substantial saving of time and manpower could be effected by the adoption of this procedure, especially in country districts, and the trouble of emptying a letter-box by the garden gate is no more trouble than taking the dog out for a walk.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, without any appreciation of the latter remark of the noble Lord, may I say that certainly what he has said has been well borne in mind. There are certain advantages, but equally he will appreciate there are certain disadvantages. These boxes are used frequently in other countries such as New Zealand, Australia, and the United States of America, but many are stolen and that would also be a liability in this country. Moreover, it would be very difficult for elderly and infirm people to go to the garden gate after every postal delivery, apart from those like ourselves who are not so infirm. In addition, some experiment has been made in trying to persuade local authorities controlling blocks of flats to instal boxes at the base of the block, and this matter is being watched and it is being carefully pursued.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the firm of efficiency experts at present looking into the Post Office have recommended that letters should be delivered at gates, and if so, can the noble Lord give the assurance that this particular recommendation will not be complied with?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl is in the first place, No, and in the second place, No.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind, if we do go in for garden gate boxes, that they are a great temptation to the birds in the spring and that therefore they should be in a suitable form to discourage the birds from using them?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that I will convey that suggestion to the Postmaster General.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Segal, has sympathetically mentioned dogs, is the Minister aware that dogs greatly like the postman coming the whole way to the house?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I understand that that also applies to seagulls.

REMAINS OF ANNE MOWBRAY, DUCHESS OF YORK
2.43 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: 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 when the report on the body of Anne Mowbray, Duchess of York, is expected to be made.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I understand that the London Museum is compiling an historical monograph which will deal not only with information derived from study of the coffin and skeleton but also with various aspects of the life and times of Anne Mowbray. It is expected that the text will be completed in the course of the autumn, but it is not yet possible to say when the report will be published.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, which is full of information, may I ask him whether it is proposed that the same rather cumbersome procedure will be followed when the body of a Royal or a noble person is unexpectedly found in the course of some kind of excavation?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in such circumstances is confined, first, to granting a licence for the disinterment, which in this case happened some two months before he heard about it; and, second, to granting a licence for the reburial. Both of these responsibilities have been fulfilled. It would be extremely hypothetical for me to forecast what action would be taken in similar circumstances

1681
if, 500 years hence, some other Royal personage is discovered under like conditions.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me who is to pay for this somewhat expensive report?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with regard to the report, the noble Lord will appreciate that the London Museum is responsible for the text of the report, and contributions to this are coming from a number of eminent sources. The role of the museum in this is largely one of coordination. With regard to the actual printing, assuming that Her Majesty's Stationery Office are responsible for this, they, of course, will be responsible for the printing costs, and also for the receipts from the sales of the report.

TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
2.47 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have anything to add to their replies to the Questions put by Lord Faringdon on the 13th July, 1964, and the 21st January, 1965, concerning the regulations covering the transport of inflammable substances.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, following the consultations to which I referred in my reply to my noble friend's Question on January 21, 1965, a Standing Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances was established for the purpose, among others, of advising the Secretary of State for the Home Department on matters concerned with the carriage by road of dangerous substances. At its first meeting, the Committee decided to give priority to the problem of dangerous inflammable liquids, and a technical sub-committee subsequently identified over 200 of these substances and prepared proposals for the labelling of the packages and containers, and for the marking of the vehicles in which they are carried by road. The Committee approved these proposals at its meeting last month. Statutory instruments giving effect to the proposals are now being drafted and will be submitted for
1682
the consideration of the Committee and of other interested bodies as soon as possible. The substances concerned are inflammable liquids with a flash-point below 73 degrees Fahrenheit.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. It is perhaps rather more encouraging than the last one. Can my noble friend give any estimate as to when the necessary orders will be ready for presentation to your Lordships' House? This Standing Advisory Committee seems to be a Committee which has slept on its feet, because it is more than two years since I first raised this subject and was then encouraged to believe that steps would shortly be taken. Can I ask my noble friend whether the steps can now be expected within a short time, because many people are extremely anxious about this matter?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I can answer only for Her Majesty's Government, and we certainly have not slept on our feet for two years, because I have been responsible for this for only some 20 months, and immediately after my noble friend asked his Question and I investigated the matter, I set up the new Committee to which I have referred. In the intervening period, they have examined some 200 substances, and have come to their conclusions; and my noble friend may be interested to know that what we are now going to do will not be dependent on ratification of the international and European agreements. With regard to when the regulations will be in operation, I cannot give an exact date because of the consultations which have to take place; but I hope that it will be before the end of the present year.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that a number of the companies which are interested in these matters have begun to evolve systems of precautions and markings for themselves, and that at least one company has submitted such proposed markings to the appropriate fire authority? Would he not agree that, while there has been this commendable liveliness on the part of the companies in connection with their responsibilities, none the less it has disadvantages in that if all the companies were to make different schemes it would lead to considerable confusion? Is this

1683
not an additional reason calling for immediate action in this matter?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, there is no dispute with regard to the urgency of this matter. No one is more anxious than I to see these regulations in operation. I am aware of the concern shown by private firms and their activities in this matter. They are indeed commendable, particularly the Shell company scheme, but such schemes have only been introduced pending the introduction of statutory measures. All the firms concerned will be consulted in these matters so that we can get agreed measures in regard to these 200 substances, and this will go a long way towards protecting the public from accidents of the kind, which we all fear.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I should also like to thank him for his assurance that we are not going to have to wait upon any foreign ratification.

THE GEDDES REPORT ON THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Rhodes will be making a Statement on the Geddes Report on Shipbuilding.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (CITY OF OXFORD) BILL
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of August 1), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BLACKPOOL PIER AND GREAT YARMOUTH NEW BRITANNIA PIER) BILL
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): This Bill has been amended by the Committee on Unopposed Bills. There are no further Amendments to be moved in Committee this afternoon. The Question, therefore, is that I report the Bill to the House without further amendment.
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of August 1), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. It may be for the convenience of the House if at this point I give notice that I shall ask the leave of the House, when Amendment No. 1 is called, to move that this House agrees with the Commons Amendments en bloc.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [56] as first printed for the House of Commons]
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
Duty to admit fresh evidence
(" . Without prejudice to the generality of section 9 of the 1907 Act (supplemental powers), where evidence is tendered to the Court of Appeal under that section, the Court shall, unless they are satisfied that the evidence if received would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal, exercise their power under that section of receiving it if—

(a) it appears to them that the evidence is likely to be credible and would have been admissible at the trial on an issue which is the subject of the appeal: and

(b) they are satisfied that it was not adduced at the trial, but that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure so to adduce it.")

Clause 10, page 7, line 23, after ("sections") insert ("(Duty to admit fresh evidence)")
Line 28, after ("sections") insert (" (Duty to admit fresh evidence)").
Line 37, at end insert—
("for the references in section (Duty to admit fresh evidence) to section 9 of the 1907 Act there shall be substituted references to section 9 of the said Act of 1930.")
Schedule 1, page 10, line 20, at end insert—
(" Without prejudice to the generality of section 8 of the 1951 Act (supplemental powers), where evidence is tendered to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court under that section the Court shall, unless they are satisfied that the evidence if received would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal, exercise their power under that section of receiving it if—

(a) it appears to them that the evidence is likely to be credible and would have been admissible at the trial on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and

(b) they are satisfied that it was not adduced at the trial, but that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure so to adduce it.")

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I propose to deal with all the Commons Amendments together, unless there is any objection. Accordingly, I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 5. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have only the effect of applying Amendment No. 1 to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 5 has only the effect of applying Amendment No. 1 to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court.
The subject matter of Amendment No. 1 is the conditions on which an appellate court in a criminal case should receive evidence which was not called at the trial. Under the Criminal Appeal Act 1907 the Court of Criminal Appeal had a wide and unfettered power to admit fresh evidence. In practice, as time went by, the Judges had to consider the conditions on which they would exercise this discretion. They came to the conclusion that fresh evidence should be admitted only if, first, it would have been admissible at the trial, secondly, it was credible evidence, and thirdly it had not been available at the trial. It was then found that this third condition—nobody has ever questioned the first two—might perhaps give rise to injustice because there may be cases in which there is some very good reason why the evidence was not available at the trial. When the Criminal Appeal Bill 1964 was before Parliament, the Home Secretary stated that he had spoken to the
1686
noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, and understood that in fact this condition was not now insisted on if its insistence was likely to result in any injustice being done.
When the Committee of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, was Chairman considered this matter—and, as your Lordships know, it is out of their Report that this Bill arises—they recorded what the Home Secretary had said, and said this:
"We construe this as meaning that the Court will exercise its power to hear fresh evidence in such a way as to ensure that any miscarriage of justice will so far as possible be avoided or corrected. It will, we think, conduce to this end if the condition as to the evidence not having been available at the trial were discarded; and we recommend that additional evidence should be received, if it is relevant and credible, and if a reasonable explanation is given for the failure to place it before the jury. The recent decision of the Court in the case of R. v. Kelly … indicates that the Court may already be acting on these lines."
The Committee, it will be observed, did not suggest that this should be enacted in legislation. They seemed to accept that in practice this was now the position. Accordingly, this point was not dealt with in the Bill.
In another place a Member of the Opposition put down an Amendment, in substance including the present practice, to the Bill. Although I have said "a Member of the Opposition", there was no Party Division about the matter in the Committee in another place: there seemed to be a rather general view, on both sides of the Committee, that this should be in the Bill. But the Government refused to accept this, because they said that as this is the present practice it is quite unnecessary to have it in the Bill. The reply to that was: "That is all very well, but if it is the present practice, why do you object to having it in the Bill?" I considered this, and I consulted the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and this did not seem to be the sort of point on which anybody ought to be asked to sit up all night. So at a later stage the Government accepted this, and that is why there is this new clause.
I hope that, in asking your Lordships to agree with the Commons Amendments, I have satisfied you that this is really a quite uncontroversial point, and

1687
certainly a non-Party point, and I accordingly ask your Lordships to agree to the Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who generally speaks for us on these matters, perhaps I may say a very few words in support of the Motion which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just put before us. As the noble and learned Lord has said, this matter is dealt with in paragraphs 131 to 136 of the Report of Lord Donovan's Committee, and the only doubt, I think, is whether the specific recommendation, contained in paragraph 12 of the recommendations, is required to be inserted in the Bill. For the reasons given by the Lord Chancellor, it was not originally included in the Bill, but in another place lawyers on both sides desired that the matter should be expressly included. That view was shared by Her Majesty's Government, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has confirmed that this is already the practice of the Court. In those circumstances, I think this House will have no hesitation in accepting the Motion which the noble and learned Lord has put before us. Perhaps I may add that we agree that all the subsequent Amendments are, in effect, consequential.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS BILL
3.5 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 Champion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Selective employment premium
1.—
(2) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, this section applies to any employment
1688
in, or carried out from, an establishment where—
(a) the establishment is engaged by way of business wholly or partly in—

(i) activities falling under any of the minimum list headings shown in Orders III to XVI of the Standard Industrial Classification; or

(ii) activities by way of the manufacture from exposed film of cinematograph films for public exhibition; or

or where the establishment is certified by the Minister of Technology to be engaged in scientific research relevant to such activities as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection or the Minister of Labour is satisfied that the establishment is engaged in training which is so relevant.
LORD ARCHIBALDhad given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (2)(a)(ii), the first being after "the" to insert "production or", and the second to omit "from exposed film". The noble Lord said: I shall not detain the Committee for long on this occasion, because I put most of my arguments during the Second Reading debate yesterday. However, I think there are one or two points which I should emphasise. As the Bill now stands we have what is to my mind the extraordinary situation that the manufacturers of the raw stock, the celluloid, are manufacturers, then at a later stage the laboratories which do the processing are manufacturers, but in between there are the people who make the films, the actual producers, and they are not classified as manufacturers.
I would ask your Lordships just to look at the logic of this situation. If there were no film production, what would be the situation? When I talk about film production I am not talking only about entertainment films, because there is a vast production of films in this country beyond the making of entertainment films. There are educational films, there are industrial films, there are films made for industrial training, there are films made for export promotional purposes. Many thousands of films are made every year, quite apart from the normal, approximately, seventy entertainment films. So I am talking about the whole field of film production.
If the whole field of film production stopped, then the manufacturers of the raw stock would find themselves with millions of feet of raw stock on their

1689
hands, with which they could do nothing and which would be valueless. I am not talking about the film that they make for the amateur cameraman; I am talking about the cinematograph film which is made for entertainment films, industrial films, educational films and so on. If film production stopped, then the makers of raw stock would be left with all this on their hands, and the laboratories would be left with no work at all to do. The link between the manufacturer of the raw stock and the laboratory which processes it is the person who makes the film, and if the person who makes the film is not a manufacturer, then I do not know what the word "manufacturer" means.
May I just repeat two points which I made yesterday? Films qualify for the export rebate scheme which is confined to goods, which would seem to indicate that the Government have accepted under the export rebate scheme that films are goods. Somebody has to make the goods, and I should have thought the person who made them was a manufacturer for the purposes of this Bill. The other point is that film studios are regulated by the Factories Acts, and the Factories Acts control premises in which goods are manufactured. So I should have thought the things which were made in the film studios were goods and were therefore manufactured articles. Therefore they should come in a clause of the Bill other than that in which they are now placed. I might add that a film studio is designated as an industrial building under the Local Employment Act 1960. But if it is an industrial building under the 1960 Act, how can it be a service under this Bill? It does not seem to make any kind of sense.
Might I just add another and, perhaps, more difficult point? I think that if the Bill goes through as it is now drafted the Government may find themselves, or the appropriate Department may find itself, in considerable difficulty in interpreting the Bill. As it stands, it reads:
"activities by way of the manufacture from exposed film of cinematograph films for public exhibition".
It is awfully difficult to know where exactly "activities by way of … manufacture from exposed film" begin and end. For example, the director of a film goes on the stage, where a set has
1690
been built on which he is going to "shoot". That set having been built, the director assembles his artistes and, against the background of that set, "shoots" his film. It is then, as I understand the Bill, an exposed film. Then it goes to other departments in the studio. It goes, for example, to the dubbing department, where various things are done to the exposed film, such as the incorporation of music, of sound effects or of some special effects. These departments are dealing with an exposed film. So presumably certain parts of the studio might be deemed to have the benefit of the premium under the Bill, while other parts might not. I can see considerable chaos arising out of this.
Going back to my example, the set has been built, the director has "shot" his artistes against the background of that set and he has finished. He then has exposed film. Thereafter the set has to be demolished to give way to another set required for a subsequent stage of the film. The demolition of the set, it might be argued, is an activity arising from the exposed film, because until the film has been exposed the set is not ready for demolition. I wish joy to the Department that has to interpret this as it stands.
I come back to my main point which I made yesterday. Film production was classified as a service under the standard industrial classification, quite erroneously. The film production industry did not make any objection because for all practical purposes, and for all other Government legislation, it was as an industry considered as a manufacturer, as a producer of goods—that is to say, as I have indicated, for the purposes of the export rebate, of the Factories Acts, and so on. So it did not object to being wrongly classified. But now this wrong classification becomes a matter of major importance to the industry. I have told your Lordships' House on many occasions that I have an interest in the film industry, but I should make it quite clear that I have no direct financial interest in any film production whatsoever. But not having objected to a wrong classification in the past should not be a good and sufficient reason for acceptance of a wrong classification now.
I could put before your Lordships' Committee the hardship case—the amount that this is going to cost the film

1691
production industry, which is in no condition to accept a high additional burden. But I am not basing my case on how much it is going to cost the industry: I am basing my case entirely on the sheer logic of the position. As an industry we have submitted our case to the Board of Trade, which is the Department which looks after our affairs. We have provided it with all the evidence as to what this is going to cost, and so on. But it is not really a question of how much the industry is going to be burdened with additional cost: it is really a case of how, in logic, it can be justified by the Government that the film production industry should be put in the position of a service when obviously it is in fact a manufacturer. It is on that basis that I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, after ("the") insert ("production or").—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My noble friend Lord Archibald has given such a lucid and convincing explanation of this Amendment that I am sure that it is necessary for me to add only a very few words in support. This may seem a very small Amendment, but of course it is one of very great importance to the film industry, and I therefore make no excuse for adding a few words to the explanations of my noble friend. The object of the present Bill is to relieve those who are engaged in manufacture from the incidence of this tax. So far as film-making is concerned, there is no dispute that organizations like Kodak, who manufacture film stock, are manufacturers. The question is: who is the manufacturer of the cinematograph film which is put before the public? Is it the organiser who produces the film—that is, the man who gets hold of the story, who gathers together the studio, the staff and the actors, and who prepares the whole production of the film? Is he the man who is the manufacturer of the film, or is it the man who, after all this has been done, has handed to him a piece of exposed film and passes it through some chemical processes in a processing laboratory? I should have thought, with great respect, that one had only to ask that question to see that the answer was obvious—that it is the man who prepares
1692
the production who is the manufacturer of the film.
My noble friend, Lord Champion, in the Second Reading debate yesterday, said that he did not agree with my noble friend, Lord Archibald, that what goes on in a film studio amounts to manufacturing, and he—that is, the noble Lord, Lord Champion—referred also to the theatre, apparently as an analogy to the cinema. Speaking for myself, I should be only too willing to accede that the theatre, too, should be exempted from this tax, but this is no part of the case that I am arguing this afternoon. What I would submit, however, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, Lord Champion, is that there really is no analogy whatsoever between the theatre and the cinema, because the cinema produces a manufactured end product, the film, and there is therefore clearly a process of manufacture, whereas there is nothing of this kind in the case of the production of a play in the theatre.
My noble friend Lord Archibald has mentioned several instances which show quite clearly that on a variety of occasions and in diverse connections the Legislature has accepted the fact that the making of films by way of production in a studio is a manufacturing process, the most conspicuous illustration being that a film studio is a factory under the Factories Act. One can hardly want a more convincing illustration.
I should like to mention to your Lordships' Committee another matter which I think equally significant. It may be recollected that under the Copyright Act 1956 a new form of copyright was introduced in relation to the making of cinematograph films. Under Section 13 of that Act it is provided that the maker of the film is the person who is to enjoy the copyright. Then the section goes on to define what is meant by the maker of a film. The legislation provides:
"the maker', in relation to a cinematograph film, means the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the making of the film are undertaken"—
in other words, the producer. I should have thought that this again provides convincing evidence that the whole tendency of legislation is to recognise what is, after all, an obvious fact—namely, that the real maker of a film, the producer, is the manufacturer.

1693
All I wish to add to this argument is that I think noble Lords will recognise that it would be a grave misfortune to impose this additional burden on the film industry in this way, bearing in mind the many difficult problems with which that industry is wrestling at the present time, some of which, it maybe recalled, were heard in the debate in your Lordships' House not very long ago. I should therefore like to express the hope that, even at this stage, Her Majesty's Government through my noble friends on the Front Bench might find it possible to give us some assurance that this matter will get the closest attention.
LORD GOODMAN: The Committee may feel that this matter has already been dealt with very faithfully and adequately by the informed, lucid and, if I may say so, very persuasive speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Archibald and Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. I want to add a word for a special reason, and I have an interest to declare which is the special reason. I am the chairman of one of the largest independent British film companies. I should add that, like the noble Lords, Lord Archibald and Lord Lloyd of Hampstead the fate of this Bill will make no financial difference to me. But I regard it as of special importance to the industry that this change should be made. I would make a very vehement appeal to the Government that even at this late stage they should reconsider what is undoubtedly an anomaly, what is inconsistent and what is, if I may venture to say so, devoid of logic
There is a very sound practical ground which might appeal to them better than the other considerations that have been put forward. It is that, if they leave the Bill as it stands without taking the opportunity of amending it, without the Amendment that we have put forward, they will really leave the industry in a mess. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, indicated that the draftsmen of this particular clause, skilful as they may be as draftsmen, did not really know enough about the film industry. The result of this clause is undoubtedly to leave a situation where certain production processes will fall on the right side of the line and other production processes will fall on the other side of the line. The division is totally arbitrary and irrational
1694
For instance, there can be, I think, very little doubt on the true interpretation of the clause as it stands that the cutting of a film would enjoy the premium, would enjoy the rebate, would enjoy the advantages of this particular clause, simply because the cutting is an operation that takes place when the film has been exposed. I think it is unarguable that this activity relates to the manufacture of the film from an exposed film. The exhibition of the rushes of the film would similarly fall on that side of the line. One could go on and weary your Lordships with a detailed narrative of the number of processes that would come on one side of the line and the number that would, without any consistency, fall on the other because the draftsmen—who may be excused for it; for this is a mass of heavy and important legislation—didnot think of them. I venture to urge the Government to reconsider this position on the simple, practical ground that we are giving them a workable clause to deal with. If they leave it as it is it is quite unworkable.
I may perhaps put an appeal on a rather loftier plane. The film industry is in a very special position. One of the aspects that have hurt me a little about this particular Bill—I have no general views on it because those are a high political matter—is that it seems to give the impression, very unfair to the Government, that in a number of fields the Government are indifferent to matters of the mind. As Chairman of the Arts Council I know better than anyone that in the case of this Government that is profoundly untrue. I doubt whether there has been any Government with more sympathy with the arts and culture in general than this Government, and that is especially so with regard to grants towards the arts and so far as the treatment of the Arts Council is concerned.
It appears from this Bill, purely by chance, that in a number of directions where they have made an arbitratry division of all the remunerated human activities into services and manufactures, they have left out a vast field of activities—the activities of creative artists, of the human mind—which do not fit in either category. That is where most of these difficulties arise. It is quite inconsistent and unarguable to say that the theatre is a service, that the ballet is a service, that

1695
the opera is a service, that when a singer is giving a great performance at Covent Garden she is rendering a "service" in the sense in which that word is used in this Bill. Obviously, this is an unarguable contention. But if you decide to make divisions as arbitrary as that, then you must have inconsistencies of that kind. It is unfortunate, when we have a Bill which makes arbitrary divisions of this kind that, where logic demands and you have an opportunity of putting creative activities on the right side, you do not immediately seize it.
This is the case with the film industry. Unarguably, the film industry manufactures a product. At the end of the day there is a canister with film in it; somebody has made it. At the stage where it gets relief it cannot be exhibited. If you exhibit it you see nothing but blackness on the screen; at this stage relief was provided by the draftsman. But unhappily—or happily, as I think—the film achieves this result only when it is being processed in the laboratory, when it is already a finished article. As the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, pointed out in his congent and adroit intervention, at the important stage when the film is actually being made it is not accorded the provision that ought then to be accorded.
There are special reasons why, at this moment of time, the British film industry, which is suffering a heavy blow, should not suffer this unnecessary imposition. This charge may make it impossible for some companies to continue at all. There is a real risk that a large number of technicians and employees will be put out of work as a result of this entirely unjustifiable tax, unjustifiable in terms of logic and reasoning.
I therefore urge the Government to reconsider this matter. We have been able to keep the studios going by attracting to them a large number of American and other non-British film-makers brought here because of our efficiency. If these people are priced out of the market as a result of this particular imposition, which I find quite unnecessary, we may lose that which makes all the difference between the studios' continuing in operation and having to close down. I would appeal to the Government on these three grounds: that there is no logical reason for this imposition;
1696
that the clause as it stands is muddled; and that acceptance of the Amendment would save the industry from a very serious blow which need not be inflicted on it.
3.30 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: We have heard cogent reasons put forward in favour of this Amendment. The one that struck me as most extraordinary, having regard to the nature of the Bill, was that it would make this bit of the Bill less nonsensical. If we once started amending the Bill on those lines, there would be none of it left at all. This is not more nonsensical than the rest of the Bill and I think that the Government would be in very great difficulty if they listened to this particular plea without doing a great deal more to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, showed him-self as humane as we always thought he was by expressing his sympathy with the theatre. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, expressed a sympathy which we all recognise with the arts in general. I cannot pretend to feel towards the film industry more affection and respect than I feel for music and the great orchestras, or for the theatre. I do not know what the Government are going to say about this Amendment. All I can say is that if they accept the Amendment they will be doing something for one particular art though they are doing nothing parallel for any other art.
May I mention one other thought that occurred to me as I listened to the arguments put forward? The Government decided to treat the printers as manufacturers. Are the printers really the sole makers of the finished article? Is there not such a thing as an author? I know that there are a certain number of noble Lords opposite—in fact I can see some of them nodding their agreement at this moment—who feel that it is quite absurd, in the case of the printers, to treat them as the sole manufacturers of the finished product. Of course the author is one of those who is a sine qua non in considering the final product. I believe that as the result of other Government Amendments the editor of The Times qualifies for a premium under this extraordinary Bill but none of our authors does, however famous their works may be throughout the world and however difficult they may find it to carry on, since

1697
they will now have to spend a great deal more money if they employ a typist. I do not wish to say anything against the plea put forward by the three noble Lords who have spoken. They spoke with force. I appreciate what they said, but they have certainly put in a plea for one particular industry which may be paralleled mutatis mutandis in many other cases, and, when they talk of the absurdity of this provision in the Bill, I can only say that it is no more absurd than the rest of it.
LORD ARCHIBALD: May I make one reply to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford? We are not asking that the writer of the original book from which a film may be drawn should be regarded as a manufacturer. We are not asking that the script writer who transforms the book into a film script should be regarded as a manufacturer. We are asking that the process of manufacturing the film should be treated as such.
LORD CONESFORD: I can only say to the noble Lord that, had he been arguing what he says that he is not arguing, I should have had much more sympathy with him.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has rehearsed arguments which were used yesterday and to which I had to reply last night. I believe I did reply to him fairly effectively, but this is a matter of opinion, and clearly the noble Lord will not agree with me. We are not talking about the generality of the Bill but rather the particular and the particular Amendments before us at the moment. I am bound to agree straight away that the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, have made an extremely knowledgeable and a powerful case. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said that the film industry was in a special position. My period in Parliament since 1945 has shown me that not only is the industry in a special position, but Parliament has been rather careful about trying to do something to secure that it shall continue to live. But that is not the point of this Amendment today.
The Amendments now before us would alter the Bill so that it would read
"activities by way of production or manufacture of cinematograph films for public exhibition".
1698
and this would entitle all operations in the production of the film to a premium. This, of course, is the point, the gravamen, of the case which has been put. The film industry made representations to the Government that the making of films was a manufacturing industry and should be entitled to the premium. The Government carefully considered the representations made to them by the industry and accepted that the work of producing positive copies of exposed negative film was a manufacturing process. An Amendment was tabled on Report stage in the Commons, the effect of which is to entitle the premium to those engaged in the manufacture of exposed film, of cinematograph films for public exhibition. This work is normally done by the film laboratories.
I admit that, having been faced with these Amendments, I could almost wish that the Government had not tabled that Amendment. My life might have been made a little easier this afternoon if it had not happened. But the Government did that in order to some extent to help the film industry. The noble Lords and the industry have argued that this does not go far enough and that everything involved in the production of films should be regarded as a manufacturing process qualifying for the premium. My noble friend Lord Archibald has well argued that it is illogical that the making of film stock and the production of positive copies from an exposed negative should be regarded as manufacture, and that the intervening work involved in putting an image on the film should not. The making of a gramophone record and a tape recording is classified in the industrial classification as a manufacturing activity and so qualifies for the premium.
It could be argued, and this is what is being argued, that it is illogical not to apply the same treatment to the making of films. I am bound again to argue what I said last night and what the Government have said: that the shooting of film is closely akin to the production of a play and other live shows. It seems to me that much of what was said by my noble friends about the pulling down of sets and the re-erection of other sets, the work that goes on behind the scenes in a theatre, is allied to some of the production work which goes on in a film studio. One could, of

1699
course, go into a number of these things. I wonder whether an artist is a manufacturer. He puts paint on canvas, but, of course, he is not a manufacturer; he is an artist. There are a number of arguments which one could adduce in this connection which will have some little connection with what has been said. I think the analogy here between the theatre and this part of the making of a film is closely allied as between the theatre and the making of the film.
LORD SOMERS: Apropos what the noble Lord has just said, I wonder whether he can tell me what he thinks the sales of gramophone records would amount to if there were no musicians to put any music on them.
LORD CHAMPION: Then we should have merely speaking gramophone records—and nobody would buy the darn' things! That is the only answer I can give the noble Lord. The artiste is immensely important in connection with the theatre and with all the various activities that help the public to a more civilised life. But they are not necessarily manufactures. I would not regard some of the finest artistes whom I happen to know as manufacturers, who would be entitled to qualify for premium under this Bill. The concession made to film laboratories is the only case in which premiums are being paid in respect of industrial activities not classified under the manufacturing orders in the standard industrial classification. So here an exception has been made.
LORD GOODMAN: I hesitate to interrupt, but I think it very important that the noble Lord should take advice as to what this clause means in its present state of drafting, because he seems to be maintaining the position that it is restricted to laboratory processes. My view, which is shared by my noble friends Lord Archibald and the distinguished lawyer Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, is that this is not the case. Some considerable number of production processes will quite arbitrarily be caught by the clause, and one of my appeals to the Government was that this was so devoid of any kind of logic that it would be sensible to accept our Amendment and make a logical clause out of it.
LORD CHAMPION: I must admit that I have not yet been able to look into this point. I am sure that the noble Lord is able to tell by my work in your Lordships' House that I am not a lawyer. I was going to say later on, and I might as well say it now, that the Government recognise that a powerful case has been made out this afternoon. The Government have undertaken to review the tax in the first year, with the aim, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has said in another place, of making modifications if they prove necessary or desirable. We shall take into account any representations that may be made by the interested industrial organisations and we shall consult properly with the Confederation of British Industry.
What I am prepared to give to my noble friend Lord Archibald and others who have spoken this afternoon is an assurance that the Government will be ready to consider any representations about the film industry as part of this review. In addition, the Government will consider everything that has been said here this afternoon by noble Lords who are knowledgeable, in this field. Beyond that I feel I cannot go. This undertaking is given with full sincerity and with the backing of the Government, otherwise I should not be making it here. So, although noble Lords may feel that in rejecting this Amendment I cannot go so far as I ought to, this is as far as I can go this afternoon, as the result of the advice of my right honourable friends who are responsible for this Bill.
LORD ARCHIBALD: It would be quite dishonest to say that I was other than deeply disappointed by the reply of my noble friend. I think that in the course of his reply my noble friend has given away the whole of the logic of the Government's case. He has referred to the fact that the making of gramophone records is a manufacturing industry. If the making of gramophone records is manufacturing, presumably because there is a physical product at the end which can be handled, sold and exported, so equally is the production of a film a manufacturing process, because at the end there is something which can be handled, sold, exported and dealt in. The analogy with the production of plays seems to be quite the wrong one to use in this case. At the end of the production of a play one may

1701
have a pleasant memory of a beautiful production, but one has nothing that can be put in a box and sent overseas. Why there should be this illogical argument I do not know, but I recognise that the Government are not going to give way on this. I accept the undertaking that it will be looked at again within the year, and on the basis of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHAMPION: This may be a convenient moment for the House to resume for the purpose of making a Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

THE GEDDES REPORT ON THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
3.47 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable the President of the Board of Trade has just made in another place. It is as follows:
"On 24th March I expressed the Government's appreciation of the work of the Geddes Committee and announced the acceptance by the Government of their Report as a basis for considering the future of the shipbuilding industry. I said then that the Government would be prepared to play its part, broadly along the lines indicated in the Report, if those in the industry were prepared to play theirs.
"At the end of June I received memoranda from both the employer and union organisations, reporting the conclusions that they had reached on the main recommendations which the Report addressed to them, and indicating the action which they were taking. The Government is now satisfied, both from knowledge of what has already been achieved such as the recent important demarcation agreement, as well as from the memoranda submitted by each side, that the industry has accepted the basic recommendations in the Report, and that both sides are prepared to co-operate in giving the industry a fresh start. I can now there-
1702
fore confirm the Government's decision to play its part also in the reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry.
"We have already taken steps in the Finance Bill to provide by Order for shipbuilders to be relieved of certain indirect taxes in respect of home orders. We shall make this Order shortly to come into force on 12th September. We intend to introduce legislation this Session establishing a Shipbuilding Industry Board to promote the reorganisation of the industry. We have in mind ceiling commitments for Exchequer assistance of the kind proposed by the Geddes Committee, but the precise financial arrangements to be included in the legislation need further study. The actual expenditure will mainly depend on the progress made by the industry itself and, before giving financial support to new groupings, we shall want to be satisfied that all possible steps will be taken to ensure competitive efficiency, and viability.
"I am glad to announce that Mr. William Swallow, until recently Chairman and Managing Director of Vauxhall Motors Ltd., has agreed to accept the chairmanship of the S.I.B. when it is set up, and I hope to announce the names of two other members in the near future. They will be able to hold discussions with firms and unions in advance of legislation as recommended in the Report.
"Another important recommendation in the Report concerned naval orders. The Government agrees on the desirability of concentrating orders for frigates and destroyers in a few yards specialising in the production of this kind of sophisticated vessel. The detailed arrangements for giving effect to this change, including the placing of naval orders, will be worked out in consultation with the S.I.B. in the light of the reorganisation of the industry as a whole.
"I hope that this statement provides the necessary basis for both sides of the industry to proceed with their plans. The Government believe that any lasting solution of the industry's problems can only he achieved by the reorganisation of the industry and a new relationship between the two sides along the lines suggested by the Committee. On both these fronts the

1703
industry has made a fresh start since the Report was published. In the months ahead the two sides of the industry will need both to carry this much further in consultation with the Government and the new Shipbuilding Industry Board, and to complete the work on hand in individual yards without delays. An excellent opportunity now exists in shipbuilding for a rapid increase in productivity which could bring substantial benefits to the balance of payments."
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I am sure my noble friends on this side of the House would wish me to congratulate both sides of the industry on the speed with which they have got on with these negotiations. May I ask the noble Lord just two questions? In so far as this Statement confirms the acceptance by the Government of the Geddes Report, will he also confirm that it means that the Government accept wholly the Geddes statement that they do not recommend policies of nationalisation or State participation as necessary to the improved competitiveness of the industry, and that the "precise financial arrangements" referred to in the Statement will not take the form of nationalisation or State participation?
My second question is this. Since we know that responsibility for the shipbuilding industry is shortly to be transferred to the Ministry of Technology, would not the noble Lord agree that it might not be very wise of the Government to defer that transfer and to leave the industry as the responsibility of the Board of Trade while these developments are proceeding?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, in answer to the last question, I expect that this responsibility will be with the Board of Trade for some time, and I am expecting that the legislation, when it comes, will be introduced by the Board of Trade. I want to make it quite clear that there is no intention here of nationalisation. The real crux of it is in the Board which has now been set up, to be known as the Shipbuilding Industry Board, which is not even to be a statutory body, but will be purely voluntary. I think that that should satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I welcome the agreement that has been reached in the shipbuilding industry, and I thank the noble Lord for his Statement. In particular, I welcome the concluding words—namely:
"An excellent opportunity now exists in shipbuilding for a rapid increase in productivity which could bring substantial benefits to the balance of payments."
Is the noble Lord satisfied that no action to be taken under the Prices and Incomes Bill will deter that productivity or the rises in wages and salaries that might flow from it?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I know so little about the Prices and Incomes Bill that I am afraid that any answer I might give would be completely valueless.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of August 1) Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS BILL
3.58 p.m.
House again in Committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Interpretation, etc.
10.—
"non-qualifying activities" means—
(a) activities carried on for office purposes within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, other than drawing and other than such activities falling under minimum list heading 486 or under sub-head 1 of minimum list heading 702 in the Standard Industrial Classification; or
LORD DARWENmoved, in the definition of "non-qualifying activities", to leave out "heading 486" and insert "headings 486 and 489". The noble Lord said: I should like to preface my

1705
remarks on this small Amendment by referring to the speech of my noble friend Lord Champion on Second Reading. If I had some misgivings about the soundness of this Bill, his speech in reply to the Second Reading debate dispelled them. What I am now attempting is simply a little refining of what he referred to as "a blunt instrument". In the business of amending a Bill which has already received certification from the Speaker in another place, the position, as I understand it, is that any Member of this House can move a detailed Amendment, even though it is a Money Bill, and, if necessary, we are entitled to divide. This, I think, is rare. It is also extremely rare for a Back Bencher to divide a Committee against his own Party or Front Bench.
Although I did this yesterday, perhaps I should say once again that I have to declare an interest. From a financial point of view, this interest is quite negligible. I have, however, spent a good many years of my life in publishing, and perhaps it needs a publisher to understand how far the processes of publishing are involved in the manufacture of a book. I would submit that they are inseparable. A book does not just land on a publisher's desk for him to make an assessment of it and then go to the printers to be printed, and make arrangements for its distribution by the book trade. Nevertheless, this is a conception of what the publisher's function is which is very widespread indeed.
I should like to spend a few moments (and they will be only few) trying to correct that misapprehension. What happens is that in nearly all cases of non-fiction books it is the publisher who devises the book. He then gets an expert to write it; he then "vets" the manuscript and consults with the author; he then makes decisions about illustrations, he sends for estimates if he has not his own printing works, and so forth. During the actual course of manufacture he is constantly in touch with his printer, so that he consults on all kinds of matters—design, layout, proofs, and so forth. Therefore it would be impossible for any printer to print a book unless he had a publishing department with him.
1706
My Amendment refers to the "non-qualifying activities" which are:
"activities carried on for office purposes within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963."
This Act specifically included editorial matter for publication, so that it means in effect that publishers who have not that fifty-fifty role referred to by my noble friend Lord Shackleton yesterday will have to be penalised under the Bill. But there are quite a large number of publishers who have their own printing works. There are in fact some seventeen of them, and many of these are well known: Collins, Oxford University Press, Heinemann, Hutchinson, Nelson, Cambridge University Press, et cetera. I think I should also say that there are a number of publishers, well known, who have not their own printing presses: for example, Macmillan, Long-mans Green, Gollancz—perhaps that will do.
The same kind of division occurs in the newspaper industry, where a certain number of publishers have their own printing plant, and a certain number do not. I would put to my noble friend Lord Champion that the proportion of publishers who have their own printing works is sufficiently large for the arguments that he deployed yesterday concerning the newspaper publishers to apply equally to book publishers. I would ask him to give very serious consideration to this point. As I have said, partly through his advocacy and partly through Party loyalties, I support the Bill, and I think it is a pity that the Government should have moved an Amendment on Thursday night allowing the newspaper publishers exemption from this tax, and the premium, and deliberately, it seems, have excluded book publishers. I would ask my noble friend to consider this matter very carefully, for I do not feel that the answer he gave me last night really meets the case in view of the further facts I have put before him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 32, leave out ("heading 486") and insert ("headings 486 and 489").—(Lord Darren.)
4.5 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: I am sorry to inflict a second speech upon your Lordships in the same afternoon, but I

1707
should like to take the opportunity of strongly supporting this Amendment. On this occasion, I have no personal interest to disclose, but I have a public interest as the Chairman of the Arts Council. I am concerned on behalf of the cause of letters, and I think this important Amendment touches the cause of letters very materially. Refusal to accept this Amendment, and the maintenance of a quite discriminatory distinction, based on no logic but on the accident of whether they have a printing works or not, will be in favour of the large publisher and to the detriment of the small publisher.
Over the years we have seen a very unfortunate trend—the increasing absorption into large publishing houses of a number of important, good, and very famous old publishing imprints. This is a tendency one would wish to see discouraged, and discouraged very sternly. This measure, if I may say so, will encourage it, because over the years I have had a professional concern with a good many publishers, and I have had an opportunity of seeing their balance sheets. I believe that noble Lords would be surprised and astonished to see on what tiny margins of profit—and often of losses—small publishing houses work. These are dedicated men. They love their craft; they love the work. They do it for that; they do not do it for the rewards. Rarely does one find that a publisher will embark on good publishing, of work of quality, with any primary intention of making a fortune. It seems to me that the people who engage in this type of work in order to advance the cause of letters and literature are entitled to special consideration.
It is most unfortunate that a discrimination of this kind has been driven into the industry by the accident of this piece of legislation. I do not complain about the Amendment in favour of the newspapers. It would be invidious if I did, because I am a trustee of one of the newspapers which benefited by the change. Moreover, I think it was a justifiable change, because without it the newspapers who would have borne the burden would have been those least able to sustain its impact. I do not complain about it but, of course, it has added to the grievance of the publishers. There can be no question about it, because the logic of their case becomes unarguable once it is accepted for the
1708
newspapers. If you accept that an organisation which is publishing a work of prints such as a newspaper can have this particular advantage whether or not it has a printing works, why in Heaven's name can you not accept that the same advantage can be enjoyed by a publishing house producing the work of print, whether or not it has a printing house? It seems to me that the logic of that contention does not admit of argument.
Once again, it is an unfortunate illustration of the odd consequence of this Bill that it appears, on the face of it, to be anti-intellectual, anti-letters, anti-art, and anti-culture. It works that way. It works, as I said before, because of the determination to divide all mankind into sheep and goats. When they do not fit into two categories of that kind, there is a third category for which no provision is made. I would urge the Government to give careful and sympathetic consideration to this claim. I think the money involved is very little indeed. They are bestowing on large organisations—which have not asked for it; I think it would be quite wrong and invidious to stigmatise them by suggesting that they have asked for any benefit over their colleagues—an unfair advantage over the small organisations, which at this moment of time need particular protection.
This is another reason why I hope the Government will seize the opportunity of accepting this Amendment, which is a small Amendment. It is an Amendment in favour of letters as a whole; it is an Amendment which would be very favourably received and which I think the country would regard as an appropriate concession to make. It does not touch on the policy of the Bill for one moment; it touches on things which I think the Government in their hearts are as much concerned about as I am, or any other Member of your Lordships' House. I would make this special appeal: that they should consider this an appropriate Amendment to make, even at this very late stage.
LORD STRABOLGI: I support strongly what has been said by my noble friend Lord Darwen and my noble friend Lord Goodman. If anything is a manufactured object I should have thought a book was, and it is indeed a particularly complicated one. A publisher is an integral part of this book manufacture, and

1709
indeed that is recognised by the Government for those publishers who own or are owned by printers, where the problem does not arise. Her Majesty's Government do not seem to be at all aware of how a book publisher works. They seem to be under the impression, as my noble friend Lord Darwen said, that all a publisher does is to negotiate a manuscript with an author and then send it down to a printer and have it printed.
They do not seem to realise that most of the make-up of a book is done in the publishing house itself. It is the publisher who decides what form any book will take; it is the publisher who selects the illustrations; it is the publisher who does the make-up, and later, the paste-up and also the proof reading. This is particularly complicated in the case of illustrated books, where one cannot really divorce the two. It would be as illogical to try to do that as to say that the making of lipstick cases was a manufacture but the manufacture of the lipstick mass was a service, whereas of course the two go together, just as a publishing house goes with the printing side of the same business.
Indeed, this is recognised by the Government in the case of newspapers, magazines published by newspaper groups, books published by newspaper groups, books published by publishers who are owned by printers, but it is not recognised for independent publishers. It seems to be most unfair on those publishers who do not own their own printers and, moreover—and this is a very important point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—who are not owned by printers because, as the noble Lord said, there has been a tendency in recent years for large printing firms to take over the smaller independent publishers, and I would have thought this tendency would be accelerated by this Bill, and also there would be a tendency for publishers to amalgamate. Indeed, I think it would be certain to seal the doom of the small independent publisher.
Eventually, no doubt, we shall reach a situation where we shall require the attention of the Monopolies Commission and then the Government will start trying to unscramble the omelette, and start again. I do beg Her Majesty's Govern-
1710
ment to study the publishing industry in all its complexities a little more closely. They might possibly start with their own Stationery Office, which does a lot of distinguished work, and really find out what happens in publishing. Then I think they would be quite clear in their minds that the publisher should be classed as a manufacturer in the same way as publishers of newspapers and many magazines.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think there is any need for the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, to feel that he is in any way embarrassed by being a publisher and declaring his interest. I am quite sure that the whole of this Committee in your Lordships' House will agree that we all have the most powerful interest, personally and generally, in publishing. I strongly endorse the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodwood—sorry! I should have said Lord Goodman. I apologise to him—his name seems to be unlucky but, if I may say so, his speeches to-day have been superb. The eloquence he has brought to bear on these matters which touch us very closely on quite fundamental questions of national living, will, I know, have been greatly appreciated by your Lordships. I should be most concerned if I thought that this tax was in any way seriously going to endanger literature or indeed the arts—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and thank him for his perhaps backhanded support, but if I may say so, entirely logical view that it is difficult to single out one particular artistic or creative activity from another.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, has, on a major point, misunderstood the significance of the Bill. He called in aid—indeed. he founded much of his case upon—the analogy of the newspaper and of the Amendment which was made in what was described as "the Observer case", but it is relevant to other newspapers and to provincial newspapers also to put them all on the same basis. The noble Lord, Lord Darwen, gave us a list of publishers who own their own printing works, but these publishers will not, in respect of their publishing activities, benefit at all unless in fact these printing works are part of the same establishment. In many cases of newspapers this is so. I know one or two small publishers and

1711
printers who are housed in approximately the same buildings, but I cannot for the moment mention any major publisher who does his printing in the same place as he does his publishing.
LORD ROBBINS: With great respect, may I declare an interest?
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, we all do.
LORD ROBBINS: The Financial Times group owns the educational publishing firm of Oliver & Boyd whose printing works is in the same building.
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, I did say that there may be one or two exceptions; but I am quite sure the majority—and this is the sort of case on which we have not yet had evidence, and I should like to know whether even then technically it would be the same establishment within the meaning of the Act—
LORD ROBBINS: Since the noble Lord was kind enough to give way and to take notice of my first observation, might I perhaps ask him to give me the benefit of his advice? The holding company of which I am chairman also owns in Edinburgh two printing works in addition to the printing works which is domiciled in the establishment of Oliver & Boyd. In the interests of efficiency we had decided to rationalise these printing works and to bring them all together under one roof, the roof of the firm of Messrs. T. & A. Constable. Would the noble Lord advise me whether it would be a sensible thing for me to arrest that operation which is now in train, having reached very satisfactory arrangements with the trade unions concerned, or whether I should proceed with it nevertheless?
LORD SHACKLETON: I hope the noble Lord will not base his decision on the advice I give him, but it sounds to me as if it might well pay him to continue with this particular arrangement. But, again, I would say this is a matter on which it will be necessary to establish whether these are technically separate establishments within the meaning of the Bill. I know the noble Lord sat faithfully through most of the Second Reading debate yesterday, but I was conscious when I came to that part concerned with the definition of establish-
1712
ments that I could have gone on at much greater length. Even then, one would have to look—and I say this as being relevant to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarn-bury—at the precise circumstances of the particular firm to make it possible to give a clear ruling. But I stand by the point that in relation to publishing (and I prefer to call them publishers, rather than manufacturers of books) the application of this will not produce the distortion that was the decisive factor in regard to the newspaper industry.
LORD DARWEN: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, he speaks of the newspaper industry; but would he not recognise the fact that heading 486 mentions not only newspapers but also periodicals? This is important.
LORD SHACKLETON: I certainly accept the noble Lord's correction: it arose primarily out of newspapers, but it certainly applies to periodicals.
Both Lord Darwen and Lord Strabolgi gave us some account of book publishing, and I thought the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, perhaps taught us something which, even if we are not all publishers, is familiar to many of your Lordships in this House. I must say that speaking, as other noble Lords have done, as an author, I only wish that I had not had to do as much proof-reading, as I and other noble Lords have had to do; or as much selection of illustrations. None the less, having been also an editor, acting for a publisher, I know that there are certain types of publication, some of them very elaborate publications, where very great editorial skill is required and where the production is comparable to periodicals or films. But, having granted all this, I must stress that I think the damage that is likely to be done will be a great deal less than has been implied, although not quantified, in the speeches of my noble friends.
If we look at the production of a book and at the costs involved, it is worth noting that, of the costs of the book as it leaves the publisher (and there are slight variations according to whether it is fiction or non-fiction, or even paper-back) broadly something like 30 to 32 per cent. is on the printing, binding and paper. This will, of course, attract premium and to that extent will be an offset against the

1713
payment of the selective employment tax by that part of the publishing activity which will in fact pay the tax.
It is difficult, I find, to get precise figures on this matter, I have had to draw on certain figures which were published recently in The Publisher. As I mentioned, in the case of a novel something like 32 per cent. of the cost goes on paper, printing and binding.
LORD DARWEN: May I interrupt the noble Lord again? Is he suggesting, in speaking of the 32 per cent. of the production costs carrying the premium, that those publishers who employ outside printers will, in fact, get a reduced price?
LORD SHACKLETON: I hope the noble Lord will let me deploy a fairly difficult argument: I was about to come to this point. The position will still be the same. The publisher should get the benefit—I will not say he will get a reduced price, but at least it will not be an increased price. It is the hope of the Government that there will be certain savings where this premium is paid, and the position ought to be the same whether the publisher goes to an outside printing firm or does his own printing. But I am not making a major point of this. My major point is that, of the cost of the book when it leaves the publisher, only a proportion will attract tax.
At this point the author—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, so rightly referred, although there has been little mention of authors in other parts of the discussion—is himself responsible for 20 per cent. of the cost of the book as it leaves the publisher. Of course, the author certainly will be self-employed and will not pay the tax, though possibly his amanuensis might do so. When we look at the management of the publishing firm—what might be called the production—we find that the figure is around 30 per cent., and of this only about 10 per cent. is editorial production and directors. Then there is another 7 per cent. on surcharges and carriage, where again there will be certain refunds on the carriage, so that this also should not be affected by the tax.
I have not been able to arrive—although I recognise that it would have been helpful to your Lordships if I had
1714
been able to do so—at an estimate of the effect of the cost of this tax on publishing. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said he thought it would be very small. I certainly accept that in the past a number of publishers, particularly small publishers, have failed; that others have had a difficult time, while some have been subject to amalgamation. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, that there has been a large element of merging, although I do not think it is likely to reach the stage—I think the noble Lord was indulging in hyperbole—at which the Monopolies Commission might have to take action. I would say sincerely that I do not believe that this tax will significantly damage publishing. As I say, it affects only a proportion of the publishing process.
Nor do I think, on the evidence I have had so far—although we shall look with great interest into the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and watch how he arranges his affairs—that it is likely in any way to produce the sort of distortion which would have arisen in the newspaper and periodical industry and which was the main ground for that particular Amendment. It is perhaps a dangerous thing to say (though I think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will sympathise when I say it), but I believe it is unwise to apply too much logic to different parts of this Bill. The broad purpose, however, must stand. The moment one goes into the details and the anomalies, one is liable to get into trouble. But I assure your Lordships that on the evidence—and I have looked into this very closely—I see no grounds for apprehension.
I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said: that anything which could put a serious tax on knowledge or the arts is something we should have to be deeply concerned about. But I appeal to my noble friend to wait and see what the effect is. I cannot give an undertaking, but if our assessment of the way in which this tax would operate in relation to the book-publishing industry proved to be wrong, we should certainly be prepared to have another look at the position. In the meantime, I feel that this will not have the damaging effects my noble friend may fear.
LORD DARWEN: I think your Lordships will appreciate that the reply of my noble friend Lord Shackleton is not satisfactory, because it does not answer the points which I put to him, and which other noble Lords who supported this Amendment put to him. However, in view of his closing assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDmoved, in the definition of "non-qualifying activities", after "702" to insert, "or under sub-head 1 of minimum list heading 704". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, which is distinguished from its predecessors, not by being more logical, but by the fact that the intention to benefit the shipbuilding industry was included in the White Paper. The effect of this Amendment is to restore the shipping industry, not the shipbuilding industry, to the position which it appeared to have according to paragraph 16 on page 5 of the White Paper, which says:
"It is not intended that the tax should fall effectively on transport"—
and then there are certain savings, and it continues:
"Shipping (including fishing vessels) and other forms of transport such as airlines and inland waterways will, with ports and airports, generally speaking, have the tax refunded, though there will be some exceptions."
So it was evidently the intention of Her Majesty's Government to include the shipping industry within the benefits of these refunds and premium.
It is true that the fate of the two previous Amendments, which could not have had better intrinsic merits nor have been more eloquently argued. gives me little encouragement to think that my Amendment may fare better. But I rest on the strength of my argument, partially, it is true, on its intrinsic merits (although I realise that that does not count for too much) but more on the fact that it was clearly the intention of the Government to include the shipping industry in these benefits.
I believe the reason why the intended benefit has slipped is that it may not have been clear to Her Majesty's Ministers at the time of drafting the Bill itself just what the structure of the ship-
1716
ping industry is. As I understand it, it was the intention of the Government that a shipping company should benefit by a refund if its seagoing personnel exceeded its shore-based personnel. Then, the whole of the personnel, shore-based and seagoing, would benefit by the refund. But where the shore-based personnel exceeded the seagoing personnel, then no refund would be made. Normally, of course, there would be no difficulty at all in a company qualifying by this definition. But there is a further complication in that now, under the Bill, only seafarers who are both domiciled and resident in the United Kingdom may count as seafaring personnel for this purpose—I imagine because of the necessity for registration under the National Insurance Act for employment purposes.
In the shipping industry the difficulty arises for companies who employ large numbers of Asians or lascars who are not normally resident in this country. In fact, the structure of the shipping industry is such that, out of the total of 150,000 seagoing men in the industry, no fewer than 40,000 are either Asians or lascars, and therefore not domiciled in this country. In the light of those figures, it is quite clear that companies who employ a large number of seafarers who are not home-based and not domiciled here will not be able to qualify according to the definition of the Bill, because the seagoing men whom they employ will not count to match against the home-based personnel, who will not qualify unless they are exceeded in number by the seafarers.
This is the point—it seems a sound technical point. I believe it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to include the industry as a whole. It is an industry which is not only a saver of foreign currency but also an earner of foreign currency. It is now recovering from the severe setback of the seamen's strike. It is in the fiercest possible competition with foreign shipping companies. Therefore, the last thing that anybody would wish to do, I am sure, is to handicap it by imposing upon it additional taxation.
There is just one further point. Of course, some of these shipping lines are in competition with the nationalised Transport Holding Company and British Railways shipping services. Here again,

1717
I think it is the general principle of the Government not to upset the basis of fair competition between the nationalised lines and private lines. It is on these grounds that I feel that this is a special case, distinguished by the words in the Government's own White Paper, that their intention was that the shipping industry should benefit. It is on these grounds that I urge the Government again to look at this point, and on these grounds I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: Before the noble Lord sits down and the Question is put, I should like him to explain to me the point about the nationalised as opposed to privately-owned lines. Is he suggesting that there is some element of distinction in this connection? I did not quite get the point.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Yes. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. As I understand it, there is. There are certain shipping lines which are run by British Railways, such as the cross-Channel services. There are certain shipping lines which are run by the Transport Holding Company. Both of these services are, in certain cases, in competition with the private shipping services, and unless the Amendment is made there may be some lines which employ a large number of non-domiciled seafaring men and which would be put at a disadvantage if the incidence of tax fell upon them. This is, I think, an additional point—it was not my main argument—for asking the Government to look again at the shipping industry and, I hope, to accept the Amendment, the effect of the Amendment being that all shore-based personnel would qualify for the refund, leaving the seafarers in the certain category in which they now fall. Whether it is done in this way, or whether some way can be found in which the non-domiciled seafarers can be brought in in order to correct the imbalance that will occur in some companies, I do not know. I feel that this is a good point, and I hope that Her Majesty's Ministers will look at it.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 33, after ("702") insert ("or under sub-head 1 of minimum list heading 704").—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
4.38 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: This Amendment is one which has been considered. It has been considered by the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. I rather think that there is some misunderstanding here by the Chamber and, to some extent, by the noble Lord. The seagoing personnel of shipping companies are regarded, for purposes of the Bill, as being employed from a shore establishment. This is agreed between us, is it not? But the point that the noble Lord makes is one that is chiefly based on the fact that some shipping companies employ what I might call foreign recruited seamen in the operation of their business.
Under the provisions of Section 44 of the Finance Act which we have just passed, no selective employment tax will be paid in respect of any mariners in foreign-going ships, whether they are domiciled in the United Kingdom or not. I am sure that this is common ground between us. It hardly seems reasonable for the shipping companies to argue that seamen recruited abroad, in respect of whom no tax is paid and many of whom will not be employed from an establishment in the United Kingdom, should nevertheless be allowed to count for purposes of determining a United Kingdom shore establishment entitled to refund of the selective employment tax.
The noble Lord argued the point about the nationalised industry being favoured as against a private company. The only case I can think of where they are in competition would be in the cross-Channel services. In this case I am sure the noble Lord will know that the companies which are in competition with the nationalised industries do not employ seamen who are recruited outside this country. This term is usually applied to men who are recruited in Asian countries in particular. The more I look at this the more I feel that this is one case, at any rate, in which the Government are right.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD CHAMPION: The Government are right in most things but on this one I feel on more secure ground than I did on the cases that have been argued previously on this Bill this afternoon. I do not think there can possibly be anything

1719
here which is really adverse to the shipping companies. In some things they will to some extent be better placed than large manufacturing concerns. For example, shipping companies are likely to be in a better position than large manufacturing concerns with head offices in London, as they will be able to treat their seagoing personnel as being employed from their head office and will be able to obtain refunds for the head office as a whole.
This is a case on which I feel no difficulty at all about asking the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment. But if by any chance it should happen that this Bill in its operation will work as the Chamber of Shipping and the noble Lord believe it will work, but as I believe it will not work, the Government will include this subject in their review after the first year's operation of the tax and will be prepared to consider any representations which may be made in the light of experience. I can assure the noble Lord that after careful examination the Government have decided that they ought not to accept the Amendment at this stage, but they will certainly be prepared to consider what the noble Lord has said and will consider any representations which I imagine the Chamber of Shipping will not be slow to make if they find they are being adversely affected.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord for his explanation and answer, although I have to confess that I feel little persuaded by it, and I am staggered that he finds that this is the best case he has looked at out of all. I agree that he has looked at some pretty frightful ones, but really this is an anomaly. In fact, he makes out for me the case I have been arguing when he speaks about these lucky shipping companies which can count in their head office personnel because they are covered along with the seafarers. That is just what I am pleading for, that some companies employ foreign seafarers and therefore will not be able to include head office personnel or any other shore-based personnel. It sticks out like a sore thumb. However, this is not the occasion to press the Amendment and I can do no other than withdraw it. But unfortunately the shipping companies will make further representations to the noble Lord because this is a case which he should look at again.
1720
I can only hope that, after next year's review, this will be the very first case to be corrected.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of August 1):
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Champion.)
4.48 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, this would seem to be the appropriate moment, for me to express my thanks to the Government for the consideration which they have given to the charities in their concession under Clause 5 of the Bill. I have not put down any Amendment to the Bill, but it seems to me that the Government are still in something of a quandary in this matter, and perhaps I can best express it by referring to the conditions in relation to a blind school with which I am connected—and similar conditions must apply to a large number of charities all over the country. The blind school with which I am connected runs two establishments, for children and also for adults. All the pupils are received at present from local authorities, but if any of your Lordships were to go blind I think you would probably have to go to the school with which I am connected to learn how to be blind.
The school, like many other charities, feeds all its pupils by contract with caterers. As it has two establishments, its catering charges are considerable. The caterers say—and I quite understand their viewpoint—that because of the selective employment tax they will have greatly to increase their charges. This particular school could probably meet the extra charges by increasing its fees to the local authorities, but it would then be up against the Government's prices and incomes policy, for the Government would not wish to see any increase in their fees. The only other resource left to the school

1721
would be to dip into its own general fund, which is not a very large one. It would be forced to dip into its capital, which has been subscribed by the British people for the service of the blind.
I think Her Majesty's Government will see that this is a matter which cannot be deferred, because the fees of the school only meet its current outlay, and they cannot be increased out of hand. In this particular case, it may be possible, as I say, for the school to have recourse to the local authorities, but there must be a great many other charities which practise very much the same method of feeding people for whom they are responsible, and which do not have that recourse; so that their position will be even more unhappy. I have represented this particular case privately to Her Majesty's Government, but I hope that the general question will be considered by them, and without very much delay, because it is quite obvious that the matter cannot bear a year's delay and a year's experience. Once more, I return to where I began, and I thank the Government for the concession which they made to charities in respect of this Bill.
4.53 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I must apologise for my inability to be in your Lordships' House for the Second Reading debate, but having read the OFFICIAL REPORT there is one point to which I might appropriately refer on Third Reading. It is related, but strictly additional, to a point which was clearly and forcibly argued by my noble friends Lord Harlech, Lord Conesford, Lord Barnby and Lord Nugent of Guildford. It relates to what I may, for the sake of brevity, call the forced loan. In that connection, perhaps I ought to declare a two-fold interest: on the one hand, a connection with manufacturing industry, in which case the interest I suppose, in theory, ultimately would be that of a beneficiary; and, on the other hand, a connection with banking and insurance in which respect, I suppose, the interest would be that of a contributor.
But the point which I particularly want to make is this. At the very moment this forced loan, starting next month, approaches its peak, which is estimated to be of the order of between £400
1722
million and £500 million, of which admittedly a part will be temporary, industry will be beginning to feel the full effects of the strain put on its finances by reason of the requirement, under the corporation profits tax, to hand over to the Revenue income tax formerly deducted from dividends. These two things will be complementary and will, I believe, create an exceedingly serious financial situation. Although it may be appreciated by Members of your Lordships' House, I do not think the gravity of this combination of these two forces, working together, has yet been adequately appreciated throughout the country.
I believe that by the end of this year, and the early months of next year, there will inevitably be many desirable and important industrial development projects which will have to be postponed; and some will even have to be cancelled. It is quite conceivable—though this would be very rare, in view of the priority given to exports—that occasionally a very desirable export project will be delayed through lack of finance. This arises through the Chancellor's inability, or unwillingness, so far, to admit of any relaxation in the 105 per cent. limit imposed on clearing banks through the Bank of England.
This situation is one which we should seriously not be prepared to tolerate. Many of us, in all walks of life at this time, and of various political persuasions, in the situation we have got into, or have been got into, or perhaps, preferably, in which we find ourselves—a situation largely created by loss of confidence—if we are convinced, as many of us are, that it is only by something like the standstill that we can hope to stem the rapidly rising tide of inflation, can just tolerate the thought, hateful though it be, of industry being put into a straitjacket even for a year. I might go further and say that most of us in this situation are prepared to do what we can to help. We are prepared, indeed, to put on a hair shirt under the straitjacket and to be pretty uncomfortable. However, what this forced loan, plus the other disadvantages to which I have referred, will mean, is that under the hair shirt something like an internal hæmorrhage is being generated; and this in turn is going to mean that, when we come through this crisis, the country will

1723
be that much slower and less able quickly to recover its position.
In these circumstances, may we express the hope that the Chancellor might give further consideration to a temporary relaxation in the application of, what I may call, the 105 per cent. rule? I am sure that the noble Earl the Leader of the Houseis very familiar, from his past experience, with all the arguments in this situation. But I hope that he and his colleague will bring all the force of argument and persuasion that they can to bear in this direction. This is not a matter in which a relaxation on the Hart of the Chancellor would in any way reduce the confidence which we have regained. I believe that the contrary is true; that if we do not have some relaxation by the early months of next year, we shall find ourselves in a situation in which that confidence will be further undermined.
5.0 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for his opening remarks about the Government's action in relation to charities. One is bound to feel that, with his particular knowledge, there is very great point in the remarks that he made about the way in which taxation will fall upon certain charitable institutions—and, of course, the Royal Normal College for the Blind happens to be his special interest in this connection. The fact that we have exempted charities has been, as he said, well received. There is, however—and this the noble Lord knows—no provision in the Bill which would exempt charities from tax in respect of the services provided on contract to these charitable organisations—and this is the point. To the extent, therefore, that these charities employ firms which pay the tax, no matter what they might happen to be—building, retailing, catering or any other employment upon which the tax is levied—the future cost may be put up as a result of this tax. This we admit. Prices will be influenced in the same way as they are influenced by the incidence of any tax. Purchase tax is an example. Many of the articles which these institutions purchase are, of course, affected by purchase tax and other taxes.
I do not think I can say to the noble Lord that there is any way at all, or any way that we could devise, which would,
1724
in relation to this particular tax, relieve these organisations of the incidence of the tax which will result from the S.E.T. It must be for all these organisations who employ catering contractors, and such like, to consider whether they ought to use their own services for these purposes.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? That, of course, has been considered as a device. The school does not like it, and the caterers hate it because it is certain to lead to labour troubles.
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords. This is a matter which the appropriate charity, school or organisation, whatever it is, must carefully consider, in regard to what would be to its greater advantage. I dislike having to say to the noble Lord that I fear I cannot help him here except to note what he has said, and to thank him for his very sympathetic interest in this matter, and for his kindness in writing to the Government on this point before raising it to-day. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has raised a point which has been exercising the mind of the Government. It is one to which considerable thought has been given at every stage of this Bill, both in the other place and here. The figures which the noble Lord gave seemed to me to be in excess of what in fact will be the position. The figures I have got show that by the end of December the involuntary loan (as I prefer to call it, rather than the forced loan) will have reached a total of £160 million—and it should be remembered that this is not the total over the whole period from September 5, but the total reached by the end of December. It will be rising throughout the whole of the period from September 5 until the end of December. At the beginning of January there will be a decline, because the employers in the premium category will be receiving their refunds, plus their premiums in the case of those in the manufacturing category. Of the sum of £160 million, £140 million will have been received from employers in the premium category and £20 million from employers who are to receive a full refund of the tax but not of the premium.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has an extremely difficult job at this time

1725
in trying to deflate, to take some of the over-heating out of the economy, in reply to a Question in the other place on July 12, with particular reference to S.E.T. and S.E.P., said:
"There is no room yet for any relaxation of monetary restraints, and I have therefore agreed with the Governor of the Bank of England that the present ceiling on bank advances of 105 per cent. of the level in March 1965 should remain from now until the end of March 1967 and until further notice thereafter".
He continued:
"I shall continue to keep the position under review, but it follows that there will be no general arrangements to offset the intended effect of the tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 731 (No. 52), col. 1198; 12/7/66.]
I fear that that is a very firm statement. But he also added, in reply to a later Question:
"the banks have already given and are now giving top priority to exporting firms which are in need of credit". (col. 1199.)
The Chancellor has to consider all these matters in the light of day-to-day movements in the banks and all such circumstances, and I am sure that, as he said, he will continue to keep the position under review. I am sorry that I cannot quite give the noble Lord the assurance for which he has asked, but, clearly, coming from such a knowledgeable source as the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, I am sure it will be noted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (COLLIERY WORKERS SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEME) AMENDMENT ORDER 1966.
5.7 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, this draft Order makes changes in the contributions and benefits under the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme, changes which result from the introduction from October 6, 1966, by the National Insurance Act 1966, of earnings-related supplements to certain National Insurance benefits, and in particular the supplement which will be payable with industrial injury benefit to those entitled.
The Industrial Injuries Act provides that representatives of insured persons and their employers may submit schemes for supplementing benefits provided by
1726
the Act, and the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme is the only one made under these arrangements. It was established in 1948, is run by a National Committee representing the National Coal Board, the small mine owners and the mineworkers' unions, and in large measure uses the machinery of the Ministry of Social Security, as it is now called, for administering and paying benefit. The cost of these administrative arrangements is paid for by the scheme—in fact, no part of the cost of the supplementary scheme falls upon the Exchequer. Industrial injury benefit, disablement benefit, industrial widow's pension and the allowance to a woman having care of a child of a colliery worker who died as a result of a colliery accident or disease are supplemented under the scheme, generally speaking, by about one-third of the State benefit.
As a result of the amendments in the Draft Order, earnings-related supplement will to a large extent replace colliery workers' supplement to injury benefit. The colliery workers' supplement will be paid only where and in so far as the earnings-related supplement paid with injury benefit falls short of the normal colliery worker's supplement rate of £2 7s. 6d. a week, subject to an income limit on total benefits. In other words, for anyone who was earning more than £810 a year earnings-related supplement will be more than, and will normally extinguish, the colliery workers' supplement. For lower earnings, producing earnings-related supplement of less than £2 7s. 6d. per week, the balance of colliery workers' supplement will be paid.
Because this will result in a saving of benefits paid under the scheme, the Draft Order also reduces the contributions made under the scheme: the National Coal Board will pay 5d. instead of 61d. per ton of deep-mined coal; men will pay 5d., instead of 60., and women 4d. a week, instead of 4ld. The Government Actuary, who advises the National Committee of the scheme and the Minister of Social Security on its finances, has said that these rates are appropriate in relation to the reduced demands which will be made upon the scheme. The adequacy of the contributions will also be re-examined at the next actuarial review of the scheme which is due as at the end of this year.

1727
The scheme contains an income limit, operating at present after the first three weeks, which restricts the amount of colliery workers' supplement to injury or disablement benefit to the difference between pre-accident earnings and post-accident earnings, if any, plus certain benefits. This limit is brought forward to the date when the earnings-related supplement comes into payment; that is, normally at the end of two weeks, but in some cases earlier. The definition of "pre-accident earnings" is altered so that calculation is related to the relevant tax year instead of to the preceding twelve months. This simplifies administration, since the relevant tax year will usually be the same as that used for earnings related supplementation. The existing modifications, which allow for periods of incapacity or unemployment to be discounted, for changes of grade to be taken into account or for using the appropriate standard wage rate, if that is beneficial, are, however, retained.
One minor technical change, which relieves the National Coal Board of the legal requirement to produce certain statements, has been included because these statements are now not necessary in practice. All the Amendments in the Order have been requested by the National Committee which, as I have said, represents both sides of the industry. I beg to move that the Draft Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order 1966, laid before the House on 27th July 1966, be approved.—(Lord Bowles.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, may I, as one who in past years has had a certain amount to do with these matters, express my appreciation of the improvements the Government are introducing by means of this Order? I know the very great extent to which the colliery representatives at all grades look towards these particular industrial benefits. I am quite sure, from what the noble Lord has said, that considerable improvements are being introduced and will be greatly appreciated throughout the industry.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARINERS) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1966.
5.14 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the purpose of these Mariners Regulations, now submitted to your Lordships in draft for approval, is to amend the main National Insurance (Mariners) Regulations to take account of the changes in the National Insurance scheme made by the National Insurance Act 1966. As your Lordships will recall, this introduced earnings-related supplements for unemployment and sickness benefit and widows' allowance, and provided for the increased graduated contributions needed to pay for these supplements.
Perhaps I may begin by reminding your Lordships that Regulations of this kind arise from the special characteristics of a seafarer's working life. Because of these, special modifications are needed in the National Insurance schemes in their application to seafarers, and the National Insurance Acts therefore give the Minister wide powers to make Regulations in this respect. Your Lordships will note that the draft Regulations refer to the Minister of Social Security, as she is now known.
Regulation 1 of the draft is formal.
Regulation 2 deals with the special position of seafarers attending training courses. A provision in the existing Regulations enables seafarers who undertake such courses (which are to enable them to obtain higher qualifications) to become entitled to unemployment benefit even though they do not satisfy the usual conditions as to unemployment and availability for work. This concession, which does not apply to any other group on training courses, has become increasingly anomalous, particularly as many seafarers have their pay made up to them, and the draft Regulation provides that it shall not be extended to provide the new earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit. The Minister will be considering, in consultation with both sides of the industry, what the position on flat-rate benefit should be. The remaining Regulations deal with graduated contributions. Special rules are necessary on these for seafarers because their pay arrangements vary from those of workers on shore, being

1729
normally related to the voyages they undertake rather than to calendar weeks or months. Accordingly their income tax and graduated contributions are assessed at the end of a voyage on average earnings throughout the voyage. Although the rules of assessment differ from those applicable to insured persons in general, the range of earnings on which contributions are paid and the percentage payable as contributions are the same.
Regulation 3 and Schedules 1 and 2 prescribe the new graduated contributions payable according to whether the employments are contracted out of the graduated pension scheme or not. The tables are identical to those for ordinary contributors in the National Insurance (Assessment of Graduated Contributions) Regulations, as amended. The provision in paragraph 4 of Regulation 3, which introduces a new paragraph 7 into the main Regulations, is to permit an employer to calculate graduated contributions on an exact percentage basis (to the nearest penny) if he finds this preferable to using the tables which set out contributions for bands of earnings. This alternative method is already available to employers generally, and its extension to seafarers' contributions will asist shipping companies with automated payroll systems.
Regulation 4 and Schedule 3 deal with the situation where overtime for the last days of a voyage is paid later than the main payment of wages for the voyage, and so involves a separate and late assessment of contributions. The existing rule that the ship-owners and seafarers each pay 10d. in the £(about 4 per cent.) on this balance of wages when it is paid, is replaced by a new rule fixing a charge of 11d. in the £(about 4¼ per cent.) for seafarers not contracted out, and ld. in the £(about ½ per cent.) for those contracted out. This is, of course, again in line with the new levels of graduated contributions under the 1966 Act.
Regulation 5 deals with the annual maximum of graduated contributions. The existing Mariners Regulations, like the Regulations applying to other contributors, provide that a person with more than one employment can apply for a refund if he pays more than a prescribed amount of graduated contributions. The "prescribed amount" is the maximum normally payable in one employment for
1730
a whole year. This Regulation fixes the new amounts consequential on the 1966 Act. The Regulation preserves the existing arrangement that a refund can only arise if graduated contributions are 10s. or more above this limit; this prevents refunds of very small amounts which would be disproportionately costly in administrative terms, though amounts which are not refunded do of course count for graduated pension.
Regulation 6 makes transitional provision for cases where a voyage starts before October 5, 1966—the appointed day for the new graduated contributions—and continues after that day. Paragraph (a) provides that the old contribution rates shall apply to the whole voyage if it ends before January 5, 1967; this is to prevent the ship's master from having to calculate graduated contributions at two rates for such voyages. Paragraph (b) ensures that where a voyage starting before October 5 lasts beyond January 5, only the period after October 5 will attract the new rate of contributions. This is on the same basis as was done in 1961 when graduated contributions were first payable, and in 1963 when the scales were extended. My right honourable friend the Minister has consulted the National Maritime Board, which represents both sides of the shipping industry, and the Board have expressed their agreement with the changes proposed in the regulations. My Lords, therefore I beg to move that these Regulations be now approved.
Moved, That the Draft National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations 1966, laid before the House on July 27, 1966, be approved.—(Lord Bowles.)
5.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, for his explanation of a sector of National Insurance which, if my memory serves me right—and it has been confirmed by his explanation—is one of the most complicated of all. There is one small question that I should like to ask the noble Lord. He referred to the fact that unemployment benefit is drawn during the period when mariners are attending courses on shore.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Not on shore, but on board ship.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The courses to which the noble Lord referred are actually courses attended on board ship, and I gather that those who attend them at present draw National Insurance benefit.
LORD BOWLES: Unemployment benefit.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Unemployment benefit. I am much obliged. May I take it, then, that unemployment benefit is still paid to those attending courses on shore who are not actually in employment; that these unemployment benefits will not be affected in any way by the present regulations; and that the people concerned will receive their earnings-related unemployment benefit during the period when they are attending courses on shore, if they are not at that time employed? Perhaps I could go on for a moment while the reply is being obtained.
This is, of course, quite a different question. I appreciate that officers who attend such courses are normally in employment. They remain in the employment of the various shipping companies. But that may not be so with other ranks and that is the point to which my question is directed. I understand that, so far as courses attended on board ship are concerned, the position now will be that those who attend such courses will not receive their earnings-related addition, but that for the time being, until consultations are completed, they will continue to receive their flat-rate unemployment benefit. I am asking now about the courses on shore, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, can now give me an answer.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has got this matter wrong. The anomalous position which we are trying to correct has been in existence, I think, from 1955; and it may be even longer than that. When a sailor wants to become more than a sailor, when he wants to become a petty officer or an officer, he can, when he is on board his ship, get some instruction, and it is anomalous that he should get paid unemployment benefit; after all, he is still employed. Nevertheless, that has been the policy of the Ministry, even in the time when the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was Minister; and he did nothing about this. I am sure that he is not complaining that we are now trying
1732
to put this matter right. The position is that on shore an ordinary young engineer may take a course at, say, Coventry Technical Institute. The great majority of employers, I think, these days, try to encourage their workers to improve their knowledge and efficiency in industry, and make a contribution to the cost. I am not sure, but I believe that the Government impose a levy on the employers, so that the fees of students taking the courses of this kind to improve themselves will be met.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord about this? Obviously, one is concerned with those mariners who sign off and take courses, and who have no employer. I am wondering how their normal wages are made up.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I think the simple answer to the noble Lord is that this Regulation does not apply to anyone who is not a mariner, and a mariner is a person who is under a contract of service during a voyage; so that this point is not relevant to the Order which I am submitting to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
5.26 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
PROCEDURE
As reported to the House on 30th June last the Committee considered current proposals for changes in the procedure of the House, including those made in the course of the debate on Lord Alport's Motion on 29th April, 1965. and referred certain of them to a Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee studied the proposals and reported back to the Committee with conclusions and certain recommendations which the Committee have considered and agreed to. The procedural points considered, with the Committee's conclusions and recommendations where appropriate, are set out below.
1. POWERS OF CONTROL OVER THE HOUSE
The Committee have examined the present powers of control over the House and have considered whether they are adequate and whether such powers should be exercised by the Lord Chancellor, the Leader of the House or by someone else.
The Committee endorse the principle that the preservation of order in the House and the maintenance of the Rules of Debate are the collective responsibility of the House itself (i.e. of all Lords who are present) and are therefore of opinion that the power to call the House to order should not be vested in any one person. The Committee emphasise that it is open to any Member of the House who is present to call the attention of the House to breaches of order, though in practice it is most often the Leader or his Deputy who does So.
The Committee do not recommend any change in procedure or practice.
2. DEBATE
The Committee have considered the following points:

(a) A proposal to set up a Committee of Selection or some alternative machinery to decide what subjects are to be debated in the House.

(b) The present system of listing speakers and the possibility of combining it with a means of affording Peers the opportunity to intervene, thus increasing freedom of debate.

(c) The length of speeches and possible means of limitation.

(a) The Committee see no need for any change in the present arrangements for discussing and settling through the usual channels the subjects for future debate in the House. They believe that the present system serves the best interests of the House in enabling subjects of general interest to be chosen, while affording opportunity to the individual Peer to raise any subject that he wishes.

(b) The Committee are of opinion that the present practice (under which the Private Secretary to the Leader of the House prepares and makes available to the House a list of Peers wishing to take part in a debate) is for the convenience of the House and should be continued. But they emphasise that such a list, indicating the order of speakers, is for guidance only and may be varied; and is not to be taken as excluding any Peer who has not previously notified his desire to speak and may indeed make up his mind to do so only as the debate proceeds.

(c) The Committee have considered the length of speeches and reaffirm the commonly expressed opinion that few speeches a remade from any quarter of the House that would not gain by shortening. They do not, however, favour the employment of any mechanical device—such as a green or red light—as a means of limitation and they see no practicable way of achieving what everyone, except possibly the actual speaker, desires, save by constant exhortation and reminders of the advantages of brevity. They point out that the essence of debate is argument and counter-argument and not a succession of previously prepared speeches. They stress that those who take part in debate can only be sure of avoiding tedious repetition
1734
if they have been present to hear the points made by previous speakers.

3. STARRED QUESTIONS
The Committee have examined the present arrangement for Questions; the limit of four Starred Questions per day; the possibility of a Question Time of fixed duration and the extent of the Table's authority in advising Peers upon the form and content of the Questions which they wish to put down. Further, whether any modification is required in the practice of the House in regard to supplementary questions and Ministerial Statements.
The Committee are of opinion that there is no need to change the present limit of four Starred Questions per day; nor are they in favour of imposing a time-limit for Questions in this House.
As regards the Table's authority in advising Peers upon the form and content of Questions, they recommend that this authority should not be extended and that the Table should continue to act in an advisory capacity only. They reaffirm the principles that the wording of a Question is the responsibility of the Peer who asks it, and that the decision whether a Question is or is not "in order" and may properly be asked is in the last resort one for the House itself.
At the same time they have noticed an increasing tendency to incorporate in the text of Starred Questions and Supplementary Questions statements of opinion or the demonstration of a point of view. They recommend that the attention of the House should be draw to the need to discourage this practice and to the fact that, in terms of Standing Order No. 32, the essential purpose of Starred Questions and Supplementary Questions is to elicit information from the Government. They also recommend that an appropriate entry be made in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
The Committee further observe that, while the practice of the House of Lords allows considerably more latitude than that of the House of Commons, there are certain categories of Questions which are generally regarded as "not in accordance with the traditions of the House", i.e., are considered inadmissible. Such Questions are:

(a) Those casting reflections on the Sovereign and Royal Family;

(b) Those relating to matters sub judice;

(c) Those phrased offensively.

The Committee recommend that the attention of the House should be drawn to these categories of Question and that a suitable entry should be made in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
So far as Ministerial Statements are con-concerned the Committee emphasise that they are for the information of the House and that when such Statements are made the occasion should not be allowed to develop into a debate
4. STANDING COMMITTEES
The Committee have considered in detail the proposal to set up Standing Committees and attach particular importance to the objection

1735
that the House, owing to the representation of Political Parties, cannot be usefully or satisfactorily subdivided into smaller replicas of itself and that therefore it would be impossible to obtain political balance in a Standing Committee. Not only would the selection of Peers to serve on a Standing Committee present considerable difficulty in itself, but it would be impossible to be sure that the selection, when made, had included all those who would have participated in discussions in Committee of the Whole House. Furthermore, in view of the fact that Standing Committees would have to meet in the mornings, the Committee were conscious of the difficulty of getting Peers to attend regularly.
For these reasons the Committee fear that the expedient of referring public bills or a particular class of public bills to a Standing Committee, if tried again, would be likely to meet the same fate as the unsuccessful experiment of 1889–1910.
The Committee would nevertheless not be opposed to the reference of a suitable Bill to a Select Committee should the situation seem to require it.
5. MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
The Committee have examined the practice in regard to Motions for Papers and in particular have considered the suitability of the proposer pressing such a Motion and of the House accepting it when no Papers are really required.
The Committee recognise that a Motion for Papers is usually set down by a Peer wishing to raise a subject in debate in order to comply with the requirement that there must always he a Question before the House, and in order to afford the mover the right of reply without the necessity of moving a specific resolution.
The purpose of such a debate is to give the House an opportunity to express its opinion in the speeches made by its members rather than on a division. The Committee consider that in these circumstances to press to a division what is normally regarded as a neutral motion would not be treating the House fairly. since the House would not be expecting a division and ought to have due notice of the intention of any Peer to divide the House. Moreover, if the Motion is genuinely neutral—i.e. if it is not asking the House to decide anything—there is on the face of it neither advantage nor significance in pressing rather than withdrawing the Motion. But if, on the other hand, the Peer who moves a Motion wants the support of the House for some positive action, or wishes the House to take a definite decision, the intention should be made plain to the House in the form of a Resolution.
For this reason the Committee consider that it is undesirable for Motions for Papers to be decided on question—unless the Peer who moves for Papers genuinely wishes further information from the Government, in which case he should specify what kind of papers he desires the Government to lay. They recommend that this opinion should be reported to the House and an appropriate entry made in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, that the Report be now considered.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if I were now to move the Motion for the approval of the Report, which will give the noble Lord, Lord Alport, an opportunity to speak. I beg to move That this Report be now approved.
Moved, that the Report by now approved.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am sorry at this late stage in the Session to call the attention of your Lordships back to the rather dull subject of procedure. At the same time I think it would not he right, in view of the fact that this Report relates to a debate which I had the opportunity of initiating a year ago, to allow this occasion to pass without expressing my thanks to the Procedure Committee for the careful consideration which they gave to the proposals, or to some of those proposals, advanced during that debate—although I must confess to a feeling of regret that the Committee did not find any proposal which commended itself to them.
My Lords, the purpose of the debate to which I have just referred was to see whether there were ways in which it was possible, while maintaining the traditional procedures of this House, to improve on our methods in accordance with the changing needs of a Second Chamber in this day and age. More recently, we had a second debate on whether a Select Committee should be set up to consider precisely those matters.
In some degree this again did not commend itself to your Lordships' House, because of the considered statement made by the Chairman of Committees that all the points we were then discussing could properly be pronounced upon by the Procedure Committee.
Since those events, two incidents or developments have taken place in the conduct of our proceedings here which seem to me to bear out the need to give consideration to the way in which this House conducts its legislative duties and, perhaps, its political duties as well. Those

1737
developments were, first, the Motion debated last week by the House, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—the so-called "White Bill"—and, secondly, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor's Statement to this House on the Ombudsman.
If I may develop my point and have the permission of the House to do so, I should like to say that it is perfectly possible—indeed, to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in a discussion a few moments ago, it might be another of those occasions on which the Government are right—to consider the procedural innovation created by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as a brilliant piece of improvisation, fully worthy of the best traditions of British constitutional evolution. It might well be that in future the Second Reading of any Bill before your Lordships' House can be taken at any time during the year, not necessarily even by the tabling of a White Bill, but by a Bill tabled in its normal form.
The noble Lord has established a precedent. I know that in reply to my noble friend Lord Salisbury, he said that it would not be a precedent, but the fact remains, as we know well enough, that it is not what one says in relation to a particular incident but the incident itself that creates the precedent for the future.
I have described what I regard as a perfectly possible attitude to this development, but, at the same time, I think it is clear that there is another view that can equally legitimately be taken. It could be represented as a serious abuse of the legislative processes of this House. If the Second Reading of a Bill can be taken before it has reached its final form in another place, why do we have a Second Reading at all? Why should we not proceed straight to the Committee stage? If the function of this House from a legislative point of view is to revise, then why do we need bother about general principles and not get straight ahead with the process of revising on Committee and at Report?
We shall apparently be invited to pass this Bill unamended through all its stages in one day, the day after to-morrow. I think that it is right that we should consider, or that somebody should consider,
1738
whether this is the way in which a major piece of legislation affecting, for better and probably for worse, millions of men and women in Britain, should be considered and revised by your Lordships' House. I think that it is legitimate that we should consider whether this is likely to ensure, as it is our duty to try to do, justice between individuals. Is it fair to the traditions and indeed to the workmanlike conduct of our affairs in this House?
I have given your Lordships two views on that particular development. If I may turn new to the Statement on the Ombudsman, or Parliamentary Commissioner, made by the noble. and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I fully recognise that he was repeating here a Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. Nevertheless, as spokesman for the Government in your Lordships' House, I know that he takes full responsibility for it. Here is a case where action has been taken by the Executive to implement a Bill which, so far as I know, has not yet received its Second Reading in another place.
Again there are two views which are perfectly possible. The Government have appointed a talented and genial civil servant to be Parliamentary Commissioner. Whereas, however, in the case of an economic crisis necessitating hasty and far-reaching draconian legislation, speed is the essence of the exercise and precedents and processes and procedures may sometimes have to go by the board, the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner is a constitutional experiment which I should have thought, above anything else that has happened during this Session, should have the views of Parliament fully expressed on its desirability before any action was taken to implement the plan or to put into effect the prospective legislation. If I were sufficiently cynical, I might conclude that the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner and the passage of the Prices and Incomes Bill are connected in the minds of the Government; that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, may well create so much injustice to groups and individuals that the hasty appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner is essential to provide a safety valve and to provide for some of the consequences that will follow.

1739
There might also be a second view on this: that it is clearly important, if this experiment in constitutional development is to be succesful, to get the right man for this particular job. It might well be that the Government argued that Sir Edmund Compton is the right man and that it would be stupid in the interests of Parliamentary procedure to lose the opportunity of fitting such an obviously round peg into such an obviously round hole. I do not want to take my line of argument too far, but, of course, the ultimate end of that line of argument is that Parliamentary supervision of legislation is unnecessary at all. I think that it might well be that during these last two or three weeks the relationships between the Executive and Parliament have changed and have been changed by what has happened. New precedents have been established or, at any rate, consolidated. It might well be that what has been done is thoroughly desirable and gives us a view of the development of our procedure in this House for the future. It might well be, equally, that Parliament, and your Lordships' House in particular, are, as one of the newspapers suggested yesterday, gradually being reduced to the status of a charade.
It may well be that convenient arrangements have been reached on these matters between the Government and Opposition Front Benches. I know nothing about these arrangements and would not presume to intrude on them if they exist. I speak on this occasion only as a Private Member of your Lordships' House. I said, when we debated these matters a few weeks ago, that perhaps I took this House too seriously and that perhaps I took myself too seriously. Yet I think that these are developments which the House neglects or ignores at its peril—at any rate, that they are developments which should be considered by the Procedure Committee.
It was for that purpose that last week I put down on the Order Paper an addendum to the Motion which is before the House at the present moment. I withdrew it because it was represented to me that if a matter is to go to the Procedure Committee, preferably it should not go after what might well be a Division, perhaps along Party lines, in your Lordships' House on the matter of
1740
reference to the Committee. I therefore withdrew it. I intend, as I understand I am entitled, to refer to the matter in terms of my Amendment, and I hope that this will be something on which the Procedure Committee during the months that are ahead will be able to give their full and considered judgment.
5.40 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene at this stage if it is the wish of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to speak now, but I had understood that it was the general wish that I should follow the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and answer some of the aspects of his speech. Perhaps the House will allow me, quite briefly, to do two things: first, to commend the Second Report of the Procedure Committee to your Lordships for your Lordships' approval; and secondly, to comment on the procedure aspects—but only, I underline, on the procedure aspects—of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alport.
The House will recall that the Procedure Committee considered various proposals for changes in the procedure of the House, including those made in the course of the debate on the Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, well over a year ago, on April 29, 1965, and referred some of them to a subcommittee. The sub-committee of the Procedure Committee reported back to the main Committee, with conclusions and certain recommendations that the Procedure Committee considered and agreed. The Report from the Procedure Committee that is now before the House was laid on the Table on May 12.
I said when I moved the approval of the First Report from the Procedure Committee that I did not propose to ask the House to approve the Second Report that we are now considering, until some time had elapsed, both to allow Members of the House sufficient time to digest the contents of the Report, which is an important Report on procedure, and also to avoid the possibility of prejudging the subsequent debate on procedure initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on July 4. I feel that the time has now come when your Lordships will have made up your minds about the merits of this Report, and when I can, therefore, propose the Report to the House for its

1741
approval. That is all I intend to say on the Report, because if I started to discuss its contents, I should take up a great deal of your Lordships' time: and it is for your Lordships to decide whether you approve the contents or not.
Now I should like to say a few words about the procedural aspects of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. He was good enough to give me full warning in advance of the points he intended to raise, and 1 am obliged to him for doing so. It is, of course, for the House to decide what matters are or are not suitable for discussion by the Procedure Committee. But with your Lordships' permission I would repeat what I said in the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on July 4 regarding this question: that is, that if matters outside the powers of decision of the House itself are excluded, there is no procedural matter which cannot be held to fall within the existing terms of reference of the Procedure Committee—although even if there is a procedural matter, it is for the House to decide whether or not such a procedural matter should go to the Procedure Committee.
I should now like to express my view on the two matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in his speech. The first was the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on Wednesday, August 3, regarding the Prices and Incomes policy. In my view, this is a question which could quite properly be referred to the Procedure Committee for its consideration. Whether it is desirable for the House to adopt the procedure proposed by the Government for dealing with the Prices and Incomes Bill (frequently referred to as the White Bill), or whether there is any alternative but preferable procedure in similar circumstances, are surely matters which the Procedure Committee could appropriately consider and thereafter advise the House about.
The same considerations that I have just mentioned do not, in my view, apply to the Lord Chancellor's Statement on Thursday, August 4, regarding the designation of the first Parliamentary Commissioner. This was a Statement by a Minister speaking on behalf of the Government. It is, of course, open to the House to express its approval or otherwise of the substance or the timing of any Ministerial State-
1742
ment; but the decision of a Minister to make it, and when to make it, are not matters which come within the terms of reference of the Procedure Committee of the House, because they are matters of Government policy, and not of Parliamentary procedure.
5.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has given the House the benefit of his opinion on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I should like to add something on behalf of the Government. In the first place, the Government have no objection to the Procedure Committee's considering the question of what has been called the "White Bill". I do not, on behalf of the Government, accept the criticisms of the Government which have been expressed. I say "criticisms of the Government", but, of course, as this was arranged through the usual channels, it must mean criticism of all the usual channels. I think the noble Lord, Lord Alport, would probably accept that and say: "Yes; that is exactly what I am doing".
I would suggest this to the noble Lord for his consideration. Is it not certain—certain because it is something that we know, not only from this world, but from the universe, of which, after all, this earth is a very small speck—that everything that exists in the whole of creation is in a continuous state of change? And is it not clear that, so far as this earth is concerned, the rate of change is considerably increasing? If that is so, is not one of the qualities for which we must look in the years ahead the adaptability of man?
I thought that one of the important charms of this House was its great adaptability. I know that there are some of your Lordships who would like the Speaker to have powers to rule noble Lords out of order—just half a dozen rules. Although I have never expressed an opinion on this matter before, I have always felt that soon after we had six rules, we should have 12 rules, and we should end up with Erskine May, Vol. II.It seems to me that the extreme adaptability of your Lordships' House is a great advantage: the idea of having no rules; of the House itself always controlling its own procedures. It is because of this, is it not, that we have been able to find

1743
a way of dealing with what was, in fact, an unusual situation? It is not, however, entirely without precedent. I am told that there was a Bill in September, 1950 which was similarly, as a draft, put into a White Paper. It was the draft of a Bill to substitute24 months for 18 months as the term of whole-time service under the National Service Act 1948, and for purposes connected therewith. Then not long ago we considered the Southern Rhodesia Act of last year before the Bill itself arrived in this House.
It is a pure question of convenience. If this House wished to sit all next week, there would be nothing whatever to stop it; and one could quite understand any Members taking the view that the Bills we are dealing with are important Bills, and that we should certainly sit on next week. But, through the usual channels, it was ascertained that, on the whole, the House would like to go into Recess reasonably soon, and this was regarded as the most convenient method of dealing with it. It enabled us, in effect, to spend a whole day on what was really the Second Reading of the Bill, which, I would have submitted, was a fairly sensible thing to do. And this course having been arranged through the usual channels, and being thought to be for the convenience of the House, I should have thought it was only an example of how adaptable this House is. Nevertheless, as I have said, the Government have no objection to that question being referred to the Procedure Committee, if the House desires to do this.
On the second matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, referred, I would say, with the greatest respect, that I should have thought this was quite irrelevant to the Procedure Committee. While no noble Lord is ever out of order by being irrelevant, the question of appointing somebody in advance of a Bill, whilst it is a proper subject for discussion, has not, I submit, anything to do with the Motion now before the House, which is that this particular Report of the Procedure Committee be approved.
So far as procedure is concerned, the only alternatives in this House would have been either to repeat the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place, or not to repeat that Statement. That is the only
1744
point of procedure involved. The rest is a perfectly proper subject for debate—namely, how far should a Government, who have a substantial majority, and have announced that they intend to obtain legislation by a particular date, take steps in advance to see that the body which is to be created comes into existence as soon as possible after the Act is passed? One can quite understand there being two views about this, but in my respectful submission it has nothing whatever to do with the procedure of your Lordships' House. I do not think I need say anything more, and in any case it would no doubt be convenient that the noble Earl the Leader of the House should move the adjournment.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I rise to move the adjournment of the House during pleasure. In moving the adjournment, I should like to take the opportunity of drawing your Lordships' attention to the fact that a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, has won a Gold Medal for shooting in the Commonwealth Games. I gather that such an event has never taken place before, although the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, won a Gold Medal a good many years ago, before he became a Member of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is the Captain of our House of Lords' shooting team, and he has led a team which has included the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and other eminent Peers, with great success. I hope your Lordships will agree that we ought to send him a message of hearty congratulations. I take that as granted. My Lords, I now beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure.
Moved, That the House do adjourn during pleasure.—(The Earl of Longford.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask whether the Lord Chairman's Motion has been disposed of?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: No, my Lords. The House is being adjourned during pleasure, and we shall return to the discussion after the Royal Commission.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl the Leader of the House has not forgotten the Olympic Gold Medal won by the noble Lady, Baroness Burton of Coventry.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: To be absolutely accurate, she won the world's sprint championship, but unfortunately at that time ladies were not allowed to take part in the Olympic Games.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.10 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Appropriation (No. 2),

Building Control,

Docks and Harbours,

Singapore,

Reserve Forces,

Criminal Appeal,

Selective Employment Payments,

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (City of Oxford),

Oldham Corporation,

Saint Mary, Ealing.

Greater London Council (Money),

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Seaforth Works),

Blackfriars Bridgehead Improvments,

Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority,

Yorkshire Registries Amendment, Manchester Ship Canal,

Greater London Council (General Powers),

United Kingdom Oil Pipelines,

Leeds Corporation,

British Transport Docks,

Thames Conservancy,

London Transport.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
6.26 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, on one thing I think that all of us—I repeat, all of us—can be agreed: that in every word he spoke the noble Lord, Lord Alport, was out of order. I include him in this, because he said in the course of his speech that he had originally put down a Motion and had found that the Motion was out of order; and then he spoke to the Motion that he had not put down. So I think we can all be agreed that he is out of order. If your Lordships wish to be precise on the matter, I would draw your attention to Standing Order No. 26, which says:
"The debate must be relevant to the question before the House."
The question before the House was—
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? My addendum to the Motion was, in fact, accepted. It is perfectly true that it is within the power of the House to decide whether it is relevant or not. But I should have had an opportunity of arguing its relevance—and I still maintain its relevance—if I had kept the addendum on the Order Paper. I was therefore not out of order in putting the Motion down, but I admitted that, with permission of the House, I was speaking only to the addendum, although I had withdrawn it, and therefore I was placing myself on the good will of the House in making the speech that I made.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained the matter; but, in fact, his statement only makes the matter more clear. He put down a Motion which was out of order, and then he spoke to it, not by permission of the House—because he did not ask permission of the House; he spoke as a Peer speaking as of right and in his place. Standing Order No. 26 says that:
"The debate must be relevant to the question before the House."
The question before the House was a matter which had laid on the Table of the House for your Lordships' information for months, and the matters to which he addressed himself were matters that

1747
occurred only last week. Therefore I think we can all agree—I think the noble Lord must agree—that he was out of order from beginning to end.
There are some other points on which I should like to touch. First of all, the suggestion that the statement in advance given to us by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the 4th of this month, is not (this makes my point quite perfect) something that could be referred to the Procedure Committee. I would remind your Lordships that the Procedure Committee is a non-political Committee of your Lordships' House, appointed by your Lordships to frame Rules, or to suggest amendments to the Rules, for the better ordering of the debates in your Lordships' House. It is entirely non-political, and it would be entirely improper and, if I may use the word in the proper sense, utterly impertinent of the Procedure Committee to pass an opinion on a matter which was going to form the subject of a Bill in the future but which had not even yet been put into words. I am not at all sure that I heard the noble Earl the Lord Chairman too well—from these Cross-Benches hearing aids are simply non-operative—but I think that he said something of the kind. I think everyone will agree with that.
I think there is a point which we may take as a lesson for the future and which I should like the Government to consider. Two Mondays ago we passed a Resolution dispensing with Standing Order No. 35 (which governs the order of Business)and the Standing Order which forbids the taking of more than one stage of a Bill on any one day. I submit that it might very well be considered whether it would not be better, at the end of the Session, to pass that Resolution solely in relation to Government business, for one remembers what in fact happened. The Lord Chairman put down this very proper Motion which we are now discussing, and the noble Lord, Lord Alport, put down a perfectly irrelevant Amendment which introduced a matter on which he was very keen. If he had got away with it, he would have had all the advantages of a Wednesday afternoon debate.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I interrupt the noble Lord, not in my capacity as Leader of the House,
1748
but just as a fellow Member of the House. The noble Lord has been very severe on the noble Lord, Lord Alport; it is not for me to say whether he was justified or not. Is it not just conceivable that the noble Lord himself might be out of order now?
LORD SALTOUN: My point is that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, availed himself of the absence of Standing Order No. 35 in order to alter the order of Government business to defeat Lord Alport.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suggest that the reason we agreed to alter it was that it was for the convenience of the House. There was very important Government legislation to be considered, and I thought that that should be dealt with first before we moved to what is admittedly an important Motion, but as the noble Lord has said, Government Business should come first.
LORD SALTOUN: I am not attacking the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; I am merely congratulating him. I think that we ought to be rather careful about making recommendations which may have a political bearing, to a Committee which is a non-political body set up by your Lordships to assist your Lordships in framing the Rules and principles for the governing of the House. That is all I have to say on the subject, and I hope that the noble Earl who leads the House will consider it to be relevant.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for many minutes. I want to say three things. The first is in reference to the debate we had on July 4 this year in which this House defeated the Motion of my noble friend, Lord Alport, by 53 votes to 25. My noble friend Lord Alport in alluding to that occasion in the present debate said that perhaps he took the House of Lords too seriously, or perhaps took himself too seriously. I would assure him that he did not take the House of Lords too seriously. The 53 in the majority were quite as serious in their opinion of the House of Lords as was the noble Lord himself. Nor do I think that I am a wholly frivolous character, and I took a fairly prominent part in the debate and was a Teller against the noble Lord. The reason the House of Lords defeated the Motion by 53 to 25 votes

1749
was that the House of Lords by that majority thought that he was wrong.
I now pass to the subject of the two other matters which the noble Lord would like to be considered by our Procedure Committee. As regards the Statement of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, I believe that we are unanimously in agreement with the view expressed by the Lord Chairman of Committees, the Lord Chancellor himself and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that that would be utterly unsuitable for reference to the Committee on Procedure.
I now come to the remaining matter, the matter of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on August 3. I gather that there is nothing to stop my noble friend Lord Alport from referring that matter to the Procedure Committee, should he wish to do so. He can do that by writing a letter and neither requires nor seeks the authority of this House. But in case he does so, and because I am not myself a member of the Procedure Committee, perhaps the House would permit me to say this. I do not think I shall generally be thought to be unduly favourable to the passage of Her Majesty's Government's recent legislative proposals. But faced as he was with the problem with which we were faced, I should like to express it as my opinion—and I know many of my noble friends agree with me—that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the Government Chief Whip, did his honest best to serve the interests of this House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LICENSING (CERTIFICATES IN SUSPENSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of August 1), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE 70 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT
6.38 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDhad given Notice of a Motion to call attention to the extension of the experimental period for the 70 m.p.h. speed limit; and to move
1750
for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, rises on the next Business, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that I do not propose to move this evening the Motion which is on the Order Paper in my name. I think it might be for the convenience of the House if, instead of bringing this matter on at a rather late hour, I were to postpone it to some future occasion.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am delighted to learn that the noble Lord is not to move his Motion this evening. I have had a tiring time lately, and I am most happy to be relieved of the task of replying to-night. I am most grateful.

VICTORIA HOSPITAL SITE, CHELSEA
6.40 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the deplorable condition of the site of the former Victoria Hospital for Children, Tite Street, Chelsea, and what plans they have in mind with regard to the future of this site at a time of acute shortage of hospital facilities. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can assure the House that I shall not detain your Lordships for many minutes. I have put down this Question because of the great concern, particularly in the neighbourhood of Chelsea and Kensington, about the condition of the site in question. I would first of all declare what is an academic interest in this matter, in that for several years I served on the house committee of this particular hospital. My father was for 25 years chairman of the hospital, and his father before him was chairman for a number of years. I should also say that, due to the courtesies of this House, I have been in contact with my honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Chelsea, in whose constituency this hospital is situated.
On March 9 1965 (at col. 11 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) I asked Her Majesty's Government this Question:
"what plans they have in mind in respect of the building which was until recently the Victoria Hospital for Children, Tite Street, Chelsea."
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor (I gave him notice that I should mention his name in

1751
the course of this debate), answered that there was
"a proposal that the site of this building should be used for the rebuilding of a convent, the present site of which will be needed for the proposed grouping of postgraduate teaching hospitals in Chelsea. The convent are still considering how best they can use the site at Tite Street. Provided that no unforeseen complications arise, the existing buildings will be demolished, probably later this year."
That was said in 1965. In another place yesterday, the honourable Member for Chelsea put down a similar Question to the Government and the Minister of Health gave the answer that the buildings would probably be finally demolished at the end of this year.
I should like to assure the House that I do not propose to make any political point out of this matter. The hospital itself was closed at the instigation of my right honourable friend the Member for Wolver Hampton, South-West, Mr. Powell, when he was Minister of Health, despite a number of local representations that the hospital was serving a useful purpose. The hospital has moved to Tooting, where it is planned that eventually the St. George's Hospital, in whose group it is situated, will be moving. I should add that the hospital has settled down extremely well. The children are very happy, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Crook, who lives very near the area, will bear out. I have myself been to see this hospital and I should like to assure the House that they are being very well looked after.
My main concern, so far as this Question is concerned, is the present condition of the site. This hospital was founded in the reign of Queen Victoria. It has served an extremely useful purpose—my own two daughters have been patients there, and a number of the staff were not only great personal friends of my father but great personal friends of myself. But I have not put down this Question purely for parochial reasons. I would quote briefly from a letter which was sent to me from a member of the Epsom and district branch of the Royal College of Nursing, who I believe was formerly attached to this hospital. She writes:
"Since closure, sick children from this area"—
1752
that, of course, is the Chelsea area—
"have to be conveyed to Tooting, causing additional expenditure of money and time for visiting parents. Only last week a distraught mother with a very sick child was horrified to find the hospital closed and had to continue her journey to Tooting. Since closure, tramps have broken in and have defiled the building and now a demolition squad is at work."
I went to look at the building three weeks ago, and can bear out that what this lady says is basically true. The windows were out, the roof was half on and half off, there were pools of water everywhere—admittedly, it had been raining—and the whole building was nothing short of a disgrace. I am not an expert on building, but I should have thought the demolition of a building of this nature could be completed in under six months, and there are already signs of the demolition contractor—who comes from Surrey—outside the hospital. I understand that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Health has confirmed in another place that demolition is going on. The matter has been raised on the Kensington Borough Council, and they too are very concerned about it.
I should like to put one specific question to the noble Lord who is to reply, and who has had a good deal of experience in the field of social welfare and hospital welfare. I am sure he will give the most sympathetic consideration to this question. Will he convey to his right honourable friend the need to make certain that when hospitals are closed in future this kind of situation dose not happen again, and that everything is done to ensure that the site is taken up as soon as possible; or, at any rate, to see that the condition of the site is not allowed to deteriorate to that of the present site at Tite Street? The shortage of hospitals and hospital accommodation is well known to noble Lords on all sides of the House, and in these days of desperate shortage of hospital beds it is essential that this situation is not allowed to recur. I would ask the noble Lord to give very special attention to this matter.
Children's hospitals are all too few in this country, and the Victoria Hospital has served an extremely useful purpose. The St. George's Group is, of course, one of the best known hospital groups in the

1753
country, and I understand that this particular site is in this condition mainly because of legal difficulties. I understand that a convent is to be erected on the site, but this has to wait until the convent's present premises have themselves been dealt with suitably. There may well be very reasonable reasons for the present condition, but I would again ask the noble Lord to do all he can to ensure that events of this kind are not repeated as old hospitals inevitably close in future.
6.49 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I would assure the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat that in all quarters it is very deeply appreciated that his family has given such devoted service to this hospital for over half a century. Equally, I am quite sure that all of us recognise that the motive which has led him to raise this matter to-night is not drawn from any partisan source at all, but is due to the very deep concern that he has for this particular institution. Of course, on his part, the noble Lord recognises that the whole matter involves not only the present Minister of Health but also a Conservative Minister of Health. In these matters there is no need for partisanship, but only for genuine concern with what best can be done in the matter.
I will certainly convey to the Minister of Health what the noble Lord has said, and I am sure he will do all he can to avoid a repetition of this misfortune in similar cases; apart from which, I am equally certain that the Minister of Health will himself be reading the Report of this debate. I believe that in another place there has been extensive discussion on the matter. I only hope that anything I say this evening will not contradict in any way what has been said there, but will fortify it.
My Lords, the Victoria Hospital for Children, as we all know, was a hospital which formed the children's department of St. George's Hospital, Hyde Park Corner. It provided beds, I understand, for 109 paediatric patients, and served as a centre for patients not only from Chelsea but also from a large area South of the Thames. It was closed in late 1964, after full consultation with local organisations with a particular interest in the services it
1754
provided. The hospital facilities which had been available in the Victoria Hospital for Children were transferred, as the noble Lord has indicated, to St. George's Hospital, Tooting. The then Minister estimated, I understand, that there could be saving on the running costs of the hospital of about £50,000 annually.
The accommodation there consists of old buildings which have been very effectively and attractively converted for the use of the children, and I understand there is no complaint at all on that score. On the contrary, from the information I have there is every indication that this transfer has been, so far as the children are concerned, highly beneficial. They are on a part of the site on which the new St. George's Hospital will be built. The children's department will be in the first stage of the new buildings, and we hope that their construction will start in 1969. Before he agreed to the closing of the Victoria Hospital, the Minister of Health at the time was thoroughly satisfied that the remaining hospitals within reasonable distance of the Victoria Hospital were able to provide adequately for the children in the Chelsea area.
The buildings of the Victoria Hospital are at present being demolished. I understand that at one time it was suggested, if not agreed, that the buildings might be needed temporarily by St. George's Hospital Medical School. That is one reason, perhaps, why there was a suspension of the demolition. However, this was abandoned, and then, of course, the way was clear for demolition. In the meantime, the site, I agree, has assumed the wretched appearance to which the noble Lord referred—partly, I think, due to vandals. In such cases, unfortunately—all too unfortunately—vandals sometimes take advantage of the derelict nature of buildings in order to demolish them or make them worse. This is part of the vandalism which is all too prevalent in some parts of our metropolis. I well understand the deep feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, at the demolition of a hospital to which he and his family, as I have said, have given such long and valuable service. He must have a feeling of deep melancholy when he realises the service the hospital has rendered in the past and sees the forlorn appearance it presents to-day.

1755
The planned use for this site will be of great value to the hospital service, although only indirectly. As noble Lords are aware, we intend to continue with the plans of the previous Administration to bring together on a single site in Chelsea six post-graduate teaching hospitals and their associated institutes. The Hospital Building Programme which was presented to Parliament in May of this year shows that, according to present plans, a start to the building of the new post-graduate centre will be made in the period after 1969–70.
In the middle of the site on which these post-graduate hospitals are to be rebuilt there is a convent, and the land which it occupies is essential to the completion of the rebuilding scheme. The noble Lord referred to this point, I know: it is merely for the sake of completing the whole picture that I am more or less repeating, or amplifying, what he said. The only way in which we can acquire the site of the convent by agreement is to provide an alternative site, and since the convent authorities wanted to carry out extensive and costly works of modernisation and adaptation to their existing buildings, it was desirable that the alternative site should be offered to them as soon as possible. We have therefore offered them the site of the Victoria Hospital, and are at present negotiating the exchange of land with them.
We are satisfied that to use the land in this way is in the best interests of the hospital service as a whole, and that the site is not required for purely local hospital purposes. Although there is no pressing need for additional hospital services in this area, post-graduate hospitals treat some of the people living in the districts in which they are situated, as well as those from further a field. In the long term, therefore, the use of the site of the Victoria Hospital in the way we propose will help materially to improve the hospital services for the local population. I want to thank the noble Lord, quite sincerely, for raising this matter. By doing so, he has drawn attention to this serious situation, and I hope and believe that his words of admonition for the past and encouragement for the future will be borne in mind.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his
1756
very helpful and courteous reply, which will no doubt be studied with great care and interest.