Sitting of 8 May 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FALMOUTH) BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Monopolies Commission (References)
    Miss Elaine Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to select matters for reference to the Monopolies Commission for investigation.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I expect to have chosen two further matters for reference to the Monopolies Commission by the latter part of the summer.
    Miss Burton: Should I be in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman if one of those two matters may be the problem of car accessories?
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I told the hon. Lady previously that that is one of the matters which I have in mind, but I should not like to prejudge the issue at this stage.
    Major H. Legge-Bourke: Is consideration being given to the possibility of putting under the purview of the Monopolies Commission any producer marketing board that may be re-established in full force in the months to come?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That raises a wider issue that, I think, may require legislation.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Would the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the
    522
    very urgent problem of monopoly in housing materials such as sanitary ware, asbestos, lead piping?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall certainly bear in mind that and other suggestions that have been put before me, but I think it would be unwise to announce, before my decision at the end of the summer, just which ones I shall refer to the Commission.
    Mr. John Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of the components of a cathode ray tube for a television set is between 3s. and 4s., and that when that is retailed in the shops the cost is about £15? Does he not think that that is a matter that he ought to consider for the list he is drawing up?
    Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hydeasked the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to refer the distribution of chemists' goods to the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission for investigation.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I will bear this in mind when further references to the Monopolies Commission are selected.
    Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is over two years since this subject was first suggested to the Monopolies Commission as a suitable one for investigation and that there are many wholesale chemists who are suffering from the effects of the operation of that monopoly? Is he further aware that I could supply him with particulars of at least one firm in Northern Ireland which cannot deal in these goods because it is denied membership of the Chemists' Federation, although the vast majority of retail chemists in Northern Ireland are in favour of that firm being able to compete in that field?
    Mr. LeslieHale asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state what industries he proposes to refer for consideration by the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hale: While appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman's gallantry in remaining on the Cabinet bridge during the recent tempest has occupied a good deal of his time, may I ask if he would apply his mind to this subject, which is of great importance and great interest to the community?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I said in answer to an earlier question this afternoon that I thought it would be wrong to announce in advance of this summer which industries I have selected for reference to the Commission.

    United Kingdom-Eire (Footwear Imports)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the imports of shoes from Eire are running at an annual figure of about 700,000 pairs, whereas Great Britain is restricted by quota to less than 20,000 pairs in her exports to Eire; and whether he will put Eire exports on quota until such times as that country will reciprocate.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to leather footwear. Imports of leather footwear from the Irish Republic in the first quarter of this year were running at an annual rate of under 350,000 pairs. The quota for imports of leather shoes into the Irish Republic from all sources this year is 20,000 pairs, as it has been in the previous two years.
    The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir." As I indicated to my hon. Friend in reply to his supplementary question on 13th March, our exports of leather footwear to the Irish Republic take a bigger share of that market than the imports from the Irish Republic take of ours. And I would remind him that our policy is to impose quota restrictions on imports not for protective purposes but for balance of payments reasons.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is not my right hon. Friend aware, first, that Eire is a foreign country now, and that, therefore, it does affect our balance of payments; and, second, that the figures for the first quarter of this year are lower than last year only because the footwear trade is in such a bad state? The figure last year probably represents the norm in this case. In those circumstances, ought my right hon. Friend not to do something to stop the dumping into the British market of Irish shoes which are produced under conditions vastly inferior to those in this country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: These imports represent less than a half of 1 per cent. of our consumption.
    Mr. Cahir Healy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Republic, having regard to population, is Britain's best customer in the world, and that she imported last year £92 million worth of British goods, exporting to this country only £57 million worth?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware that the Irish Republic is in balance of payments difficulties, and that that is one of the reasons that have impelled her to this course.
    Mr. Norman Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total quantity and value of boots and shoes imported into the United Kingdom from Eire in 1951; and how it compares with 1950.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Imports of boots and shoes from the Irish Republic in 1951 were 469,000 pairs, valued at £547,000 compared with 170,000 pairs valued at £170,000 in 1950.
    Mr. Dodds: Is that not a remarkable rise in a very short time? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the considerable activity further to increase it substantially by making use of cheap labour? In view of the difficulties of the boot and shoe trade, will he not have a look at this again, and keep his attention fixed on it, because it is serious?
    Mr. Healy: It is not true to say cheap labour is employed in Eire.
    Mr. Dodds: My information is that it is.
    Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, even though these imports from Eire may amount to a very small percentage of the total of the goods consumed in this country, there have been short-time working and pockets of unemployment in the boot and shoe manufacturing trades at home and that there is some apprehension that, if these imports increase, unemployment may increase. too?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall certainly watch this situation, but, as I pointed out in answer to a previous question, though there may have been some increase in these imports, they still represent a very small proportion indeed of our total consumption

    Clothing (Description)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to make it obligatory on manufacturers of clothing to show clearly on all articles the materials used in manufacture, and composition of all such articles.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: While I am not prepared to introduce a mass of Orders and Regulations on a subject as complex as textile labelling, I would remind the hon. Member that false trade description is an offence under the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887. And I think, as I said in my statement during the debate on the Prayers to revoke the ending of the Utility Scheme on 1st May, that accurate description can best be fostered through action which is being taken by the various branches of industry working in collaboration with the British Standards Institution and with the active support and encouragement of the Government.
    Mr. Lewis: While appreciating that lengthy and full reply, may I ask if it is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider means of describing clothing so that people who buy it will be able to clean it without damaging the fabric? Dry cleaners are finding it difficult to clean clothes as the chemicals used in dry cleaning sometimes ruin the cloth. Housewives are also finding it difficult to clean their clothes properly.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think a good many manufacturers of the new types of fabrics are allowing for that, but it is better dealt with by them through the mechanism I have outlined rather than the imposition of Regulations by the Government as to how people ought to clean clothes.
    Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was the intention of the last Government to amend the Merchandise Marks Act? Is it the intention of the present Government to continue with that?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have already said so.
    Mr. Lewis: While agreeing that we do not want a lot of Regulations, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that there are difficulties both
    526
    ways? Does he not think it would be advisable to try to prevent clothes from being ruined? Both housewives and dry cleaners do not really understand what damage is being done to them.

    Textile Industry
    Mrs. Barbara Castleasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of the additional textile orders already placed by his Department; and what proportion of them have been placed in Lancashire and Yorkshire, respectively.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The total value of the additional textile orders placed to date by the purchasing departments amounts to about £4.2 million. The value of tenders out and under consideration at the present time amounts to a further £6 million.
    As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) and the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) on 1st May.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if my memory serves me right, the reply he gave recently related to the future placing of contracts and that he could not say in advance what the proportions would be? Surely it is possible for him to tell the House what proportions of the £4 million and £6 million contracts are going to go to Lancashire and Yorkshire respectively'?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will consider the hon. Lady's suggestion, but I am most anxious to avoid any attempt in the House of Commons to try to divide these contracts either between Lancashire or Yorkshire or between different constituencies in other areas.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: A week ago the right hon. Gentleman told my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and myself that these contracts were placed by the Ministry of Supply and my hon. Friend's Question today refers to the contracts placed by his Department. Are we to assume that at last the right hon. Gentleman himself has accepted responsibility for placing these contracts?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I accepted responsibility for answering Questions upon this

    527
    subject, as I thought it might be for the convenience of the House that I should do so, but the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right; the contracts are placed by the Ministry of Supply.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In the past Questions on this subject have been answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Supply and the President of the Board of Trade. Are Questions now to be directed to the President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Ralph Assheton: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is possible to inform Members whether or not orders are being placed in their own constituencies?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will consider that suggestion. I would prefer not to have—and I think the House would agree with me—a public debate or Question and answer in the House on individual contracts.
    Mrs. Castle: While agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman on the last point, may I ask if he does not think that Lancashire is entitled to know to what extent these additional orders, on which the Government have placed such importance for the relief of unemployment, will absorb the surplus manpower in Lancashire, so that the people will know whether there will be work for them?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The same argument can be advanced for every area.
    Mr. Haleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to reconsider the lack of capital investment in the textile industry; and what proposal he is proposing to make with reference to a subsidy.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: While I would certainly agree with the hon. Member on the importance of maintaining a satisfactory rate of capital investment in the textile industries, two of the main difficulties at the present time are, of course, the shortage of steel and the necessity to restrict capital investment in order to avoid inflation. In these circumstances I do not think that a further subsidy would be appropriate at present.
    Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Textile Machine Makers, Limited, who have made such great contributions to our exports of
    528
    textile machinery, have over the years been genuinely disappointed at the amount of investment taking place in the cotton industry, a fact not without relation to the present situation? Will he also bear in mind—and I say this without wishing to use the parish pump technique—that Textile Machine Makers, Limited, is principally centred in Oldham, where there are already 26,000 unemployed?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am fully conscious of the needs of re-equipment, and I am happy to inform the hon. Member that the amount of automatic looms put on to the home market increased from 61 per cent. in 1950 to 64 per cent. in 1951-52.
    Mr. Haleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state Her Majesty's Government's proposals with reference to the provision of the necessary controls and to the allocation of the necessary order to maintain full employment in the textile industry.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Her Majesty's Government are not of the opinion that the imposition of additional controls and allocation schemes is the right remedy for the present difficulties of the textile industry.
    Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when there was a system of control there was no unemployment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, was there? Will he also bear in mind the extreme importance of early negotiations with the Colonial territories for the release of sterling balances to increase their purchasing power for consumer goods?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That raises an entirely different question but I believe that with Lancashire fighting for markets the imposition of controls at the present time would hamper rather than help them.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
    Mr. Beresford Craddockasked the President of the Board of Trade what approaches have been made to the Governments of the Commonwealth countries, with a view to concerted action in regard to the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade bearing on

    529
    the subject of tariff preference; when these approaches were made: and with what result.
    Mr. Bernard Braineasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to ascertain the views of Her Majesty's Government overseas and of Governments of foreign countries which operate preferential systems on changes which might now be desirable in the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which restrict preferences.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave on 1st May in reply to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) and Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). We intend to consult other Commonwealth Governments when we have completed the examination at present in progress of our future external commercial policy. We shall also consider at that time the action we should take to convey our views to the foreign Governments particularly concerned.
    Mr. Craddock: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask if it is his intention to come to a decision on these matters at an early date in order to restore as quickly as possible our own freedom of action regarding our own trade and commercial policy?
    Mr. Braine: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that we have sat on the fence far too long on this subject? While I do not expect him to give an answer off the cuff this afternoon, may I ask if consideration could be given to this country taking action to restore our freedom in this matter and to give preferences to the Commonwealth countries, whether they are reciprocated or not?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think it would be unwise to announce in advance the possible date on which I can make a statement; but I think that the right order would be that we should consider first the policy, then consult the Commonwealth, and finish by informing the foreign Governments concerned.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is in the highest degree ludicrous that our people in the textile industry, for instance, should be unemployed while we
    530
    are straining every nerve to export our products to those countries which do not want them, do not need them, and make every effort to keep them out, while we neglect other countries which are only too anxious to get them?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is rather an over-simplification of the problem at the present time.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: As the President seems to be taking an extraordinary long time to make up his mind on this question of preferences, will he not at least endorse the statement I made to the American delegation at Torquay last year, which has already been the subject of discussion in this House, and make quite clear that he supports the declaration we made on that occasion?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman may say that I am taking a long time; but I have only been in office six months, and he and his hon. and right hon. Friends were in power for six years.
    Mr. Bottomley: As we are an exporting country, and must increase our exports to live, is it wise now to consider putting up new trade barriers?

    Lobsters (Exports to France)
    Major W. J. Anstruther-Grayasked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of lobsters which the French Government have agreed to allow British exporters to send to France during the next three months.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I regret that this information is not yet available. As soon as the French authorities reply to our inquiries I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that France is exporting £25,000 worth of oysters and £60,000 worth of strawberries to the United Kingdom during this period, and will he use that as an argument in seeking fair play for British producers, particularly lobster fishermen?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear in mind the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward.

    Board of Trade (Staff)
    Mr. James H. Hoyasked the President of the Board of Trade the occupations in his Department of the 72 persons dismissed from his Department since last November.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The decrease of 72 in the Board's staff is the difference between an intake of 371 and the departure of 443 staff in the period in question. An analysis of the work performed by the staff which left would have little significance, especially as in most grades, staff declared redundant are selected, in accordance with standing procedure, by shortness of service and not by reference to the work which they may be performing.
    Mr. Hoy: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many messengers were included in the 72?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Not without notice.
    Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the size of the staff at present employed in the Statistics Division of his Department;
    (2) whether he will consider simplifying and reducing the questionnaire sent out by the Statistics Division of his Department.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The staff employed in this Division on 1st October, 1951, was 1,400. On 1st May, 1952, it had been reduced to 1,308, and I hope to reduce it by another 400 by the end of the present financial year. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am making every effort in consultation with industry to keep down our statistical requirements to the minimum compatible with meeting the essential needs of Government and industry. In particular, the Census forms are being reduced and simplified with the help of an advisory committee of industrialists. And I should add that the Census of Production for 1952 will be on a "sample" basis, that the majority of firms will not be required to make returns and the Census form will be very much simpler than ever before.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will give immense satisfaction to industry?
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the collection of
    532
    official statistics in this country is still greatly inferior to the collection of statistics in the U.S.A., and will he make quite sure that any economies that are made do not cripple the effective collection of figures by his Department?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I certainly do not intend to cripple the collection of statistics. I am anxious for them to be reduced to the minimum compatible with what we require, and that they should be as simple as possible.

    Emigrants
    Colonel Sir Leonard Ropnerasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of emigrants from the United Kingdom for the year 1951.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The total number of emigrants from the United Kingdom in 1951 travelling direct by sea to places outside Europe and the Mediterranean area was 169,521, of whom 150,774 were British and 18,747 of foreign nationality.
    Sir L. Ropner: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of these emigrants went to the Dominions or Colonies?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put the question down.

    Horticultural Imports (Duties)
    Mr. Gerald Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the 20-year-old scales of import duties on horticultural produce from Western Europe, notably fruit and vegetables, are now too low in relation to present price levels; and whether he will exercise the escape clause from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with a view to increasing import duties on horticultural produce and affording adequate protection to home growers.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In reply to the first part of the Question, my hon. Friend will be aware that I am already examining applications submitted by the National Farmers' Unions for increased protective duties on horticultural products.
    As regards Article XIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which, I assume, is the escape clause that my hon. Friend has in mind, this provides that individual tariff concessions may be

    533
    withdrawn where, as a result of unforeseen developments, imports so increase as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to domestic producers. The majority of our horticultural products are not the subject of tariff concessions which preclude any revision of the existing levels of duty and the question of action under Article XIX does not, therefore. arise.
    In the few cases where we have undertaken not to increase the rates of duty on imports of fruit and vegetables from foreign sources, such imports are at present restricted on balance of payments grounds and accordingly the conditions contemplated in Article XIX are not fulfilled.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the unforeseen circumstances to which he referred in his reply have, in fact, already arisen? The fruit and vegetable acreage of the United Kingdom has steadily been declining in the last two years and will not be increased until confidence is restored. Is it not therefore urgently necessary to review these import tariffs?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The point is that these tariffs are not all bound under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and, as these are not bound, the necessity in any circumstances of using Article XIX will not always arise.
    Mr. Maurice Edelman: Is the Minister aware that his statement is totally at variance with the spirit of the liberalisation of European trade advocated by his party at Strasbourg and elsewhere?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My statement was a simple clarification of the factual position.

    Paint Trade (Questionnaires)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the results of the questionnnaires sent out from the Statistics Division of his Department to the paint trade for the year 1949 have yet been issued.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir, but it is expected that the reports of the Census of Production for 1949, including that on the paint trade, will be published well before the end of this year.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that owing to the lateness of the publication of these results they are quite useless?
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is not the right hon. Gentleman lending his authority to the notion that a form is only a form when it is issued by a Labour Government but should be called a questionnaire when issued by a Conservative Government?

    Australian Imports (Specially Made Goods)
    Mr. Frederick Mulleyasked the President of the Board of Trade what replies he has received from the Australian Government concerning the cancellations of orders, already completed, of goods made to special specifications or bearing the imprint of Australian importers, and which cannot, therefore, be sold in other markets; and if he is aware that this is a particularly urgent problem for the Sheffield cutlery and silverware industries.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Australian Government has said that they will consider sympathetically the special difficulties arising over goods specially made for Australia which were already in production or completed when their restrictions were imposed, and which cannot be disposed of in other markets without severe loss.
    Mr. Mulley: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what steps these firms should take in order to avail themselves of that sympathetic consideration?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The step that they should take immediately is to communicate with the importer in Australia so that he can make the necessary representations there.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: As the goods were ordered on f.o.b. contract, is it not clear that the onus is on the importer to fulfil a contract which is legally binding in this country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The answer which I have given has no relation to the legal contractual position. It simply states that where there are goods of this category the Australian Government are anxious, irrespective of whether there is a binding contract or not, to facilitate their import.

    External Commercial Policy
    Mr. Julian Ameryasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the results of the Government's examination of our future external commercial policy, including our policy towards the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: This examination raises fundamental and complex questions of economic policy. I do not expect to be in a position to make any further statement for some little time.
    Mr. Amery: In view of the great interest which is taken in this question on both sides of the House, will my right hon. Friend consider consulting the House of Commons in debate on the matter before the Government complete their examination and consult the Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think it would be better, for the time being, for me to complete my examination. The subjects that the House discusses are a matter for the House itself.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us have been studying this matter for many years and that we came to very definite conclusions a long time ago? Is there any need for further examination?

    Rayon Factories, Flint (Closing)
    Mrs. Eirene Whiteasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that by the shutting down of the rayon works in Flint, the main source of employment for that town is closed; and, in view of this, what proposals he has to make, either for placing contracts which would enable the factories to re-open or for alternative industrial enterprise in the area.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I understand that, as at present planned, these factories, which, as the hon. Member states, provide the main source of employment in Flint, will be closed for a period of four weeks only, as a temporary measure made necessary by the serious falling off in demand which is at present affecting rayon production in common with other sections of the textile industry. Under these circumstances, I feel that it would
    536
    be premature to consider the introduction of new enterprises to the area.
    As regards Government contracts, these factories produce rayon yarn for which no orders are placed by the Government.
    Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rayon could be substituted for cotton in the specifications for a number of Services orders? This would save considerable dollar expenditure, would in no way harm Lancashire and would keep workers in employment in North Wales and other rayon centres. Will he take the matter up energetically and speedily with the Service Departments?

    Raw Cotton Commission
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what is the profit or loss, to date, made by the Raw Cotton Commission, taking into account the original stock taken over at the valution of market price or cost, whichever is the higher, at the date of opening.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I have been asked to reply.
    On 1st January, 1948, the Raw Cotton Commission took over from the Cotton Control net assets to the value of nearly £57 million at the market values then current. There was also transferred to it a sum of approximately £31 million to form a Reserve Fund, representing the profits made from trading by the Cotton Control during the preceding two years. From 1st January, 1948, to the end of July, 1951, the net trading profit has amounted to approximately £10½ million. In arriving at the net trading profit, stocks are valued at cost or replacement value, whichever is the lower.
    Mr. Fletcher: While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that very detailed and simple reply, may I ask if he can give me a more up-to-date figure of the profit and loss in view of the fluctuations in the value of cotton which have since occurred?
    Mr. Strauss: No, Sir I cannot give more up-to-date figures than those which I have given, but the annual report will be published in the next week or two.
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what proportion of purchases of cotton, made by the Raw Cotton Commission during the years 1949, 1950 and 1951, were hedged by sales of futures in the New York or other cotton markets.
    Mr. H. Strauss: None, Sir.
    Mr. Fletcher: While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that even simpler reply, may I ask him if he is aware that, if he is not hedging the very large stock which he has in his possession, he is becoming the biggest uncovered bull speculator that has ever been seen?
    Mr. Strauss: My hon. Friend will observe that I gave a factual answer to his Question. If he wishes to ask a question on the merits of the case perhaps he will put it down.

    Magnesium Factory, Lowerhouse
    Mr. W. A. Burkeasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he will consider using the £4 million Government owned magnesium electron factory at Lowerhouse near Burnley, for the setting up of new industries in order to relieve unemployment in that area.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The possibility of using this factory for other purposes has frequently been examined. According to present estimates it would be needed to produce magnesium in time of war. The plant there is of a specialised nature, and the factory could not be put to other uses without rendering it less capable of producing magnesium. Should circumstances change the question will be gone into again.
    Mr. Burke: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the factory was not used for manufacturing magnesium during the later stages of the war? Why should this factory, which is conveniently situated, stand idle, with idle hands round about, while the Government use scarce labour and materials to build a factory for finishing jet planes in the Midlands where there is virtually no unemployment?
    Mr. Strauss: The answer to that supplementary question was given in my
    538
    original reply and in my hon. Friend's answers to Questions by the hon. Member on 20th March.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Burke.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since there is a little confusion in the answer as between a quite different answer to almost the same Question by the Minister of Labour yesterday, would it be in order to ask a supplementary question to clear it up, the factory being in my constituency?
    Mr. Speaker: I have passed on to the next Question.

    Magnesium Imports
    Mr. Burkeasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, how much magnesium electron metal was imported into the United Kingdom last year; and what were the sources of supply.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Imports of virgin magnesium metal during 1951 for consumption in the U.K. were 2,275 tons. All this came from Canada except 19 and 38 tons from Norway and Japan respectively.

    Straw Board and Paper
    Mr. Anthony Hurdasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he is aware that some board and paper mills can now only run their machines two-thirds of the normal time because of the lack of demand for their products; and to what extent a cut is being made in the imports of straw board from Holland and elsewhere so as to effect a saving in foreign currency without affecting the total supply available.
    Mr. H. Strauss: My noble Friend is aware that the demand for some sorts of paper and board has recently declined. Import quotas for straw board have been fixed and currency allocations made to importers to run until the end of June. No decision has yet been taken about quotas for the second half of the year but the considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend will be among those which will be kept in mind.
    Mr. Hurd: As mills are now collecting more waste paper than they can use and

    539
    as it is very desirable to maintain our home production of straw board, would it not be well to tell our Dutch friends that we would rather have their cheese than their straw board?

  >NATIONAL FINANCE

    Coca Cola (Dollar Remittances)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated annual dollar remittances allowable in respect of Coca Cola made and bottled under licence in this country.
    The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Sir Arthur Salter): It is the practice to treat as confidential the exchange control affairs of individual companies.

    Members Pension Fund (Tax Relief)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Members of Parliament are not allowed to claim Income Tax relief on their compulsory deductions of £1 per month as contribution for the Members Pension Fund; what is the reason for this; and whether he will amend the Income Tax Acts to enable Members of Parliament to claim this relief in a similar manner to all other contributors to superannuation funds.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The Departmental Committee on pensions for Members of the House of Commons, which recommended the setting up of this Fund in 1937, proposed that contributions should not qualify for any Income Tax relief, in order to ensure that there should be no charge, direct or indirect, upon public funds. The House approved these recommendations and the Select Committee on the Fund in 1947 did not suggest any change in this respect.
    The amendment of the law suggested in the Question would result in the conferring on the contributors to this Fund of a tax privilege not available to funds of the same character operated by private employers for their staffs. The last part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. Lewis: Is it not a fact that all contributors to superannuation funds are allowed to make a deduction for Income
    540
    Tax purposes; and can the hon. Gentleman not see that this is a legitimate request, as it is the same as a local government superannuation scheme?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two kinds of superannuation fund, the one where the contributions entitle the contributor to a fixed and regular benefit, and the one of this kind where there is no right to any benefit at all. Outside superannuation funds operated in this manner do not carry immunity from tax.
    Mr. Lewis: Surely that supports my case. If a Member has to contribute and is not entitled to gain any benefit, surely he is entitled to claim Income Tax rebate on his contributions?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is essentially a matter for the House, but so far as I am concerned I would not venture to recommend the House to confer on itself a privilege which it does not confer on its fellow citizens.

    Burma (Debt to U.K.)
    Mr. Woodrow Wyattasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Government have asked the Burma Government to reconsider their request to postpone payment of the first instalment of the Burma debt to Britain.
    Sir A. Salter: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), on 24th April.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount concerned is quite relatively small; that the Burma Government have been engaged in trying to put down Communist disorders, which have been very adversely affecting their internal revenue: and that this niggardly attitude on the part of Her Majesty's Government is regarded by the Burma Government as a complete reversal of the friendly policy followed by the Labour Government?
    Sir A. Salter: The fact that the sum involved, about £1⅓ million, is comparatively small, does not make it more difficult for the sum to be paid. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the sum now in question is the first instalment due under an agreement made by the previous Government with the Burma Government. The hon. Gentleman

    541
    seems to assume that such an agreement should be allowed to lapse until there is an exceptional reason for observing it. We take rather the view that it should be observed unless there is an exceptional and new reason for modifying or changing it.
    Mr. Wyatt: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this will make it infinitely more difficult for the Burma Government to deal with the Communist insurrection now going on in Burma?
    Sir A. Salter: In the last Burma Budget there was a surplus, and there is an estimated trading surplus now. In those circumstances, although we are awaiting the reply of the Burma Government, we have not as yet seen a sufficient reason why this agreement made, as I say, by the previous Government with the Burma Government should not be kept.
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government of Burma has now paid the instalment on her debt to the United Kingdom due on 1st April.
    Sir A. Salter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Davies: Is it not desirable to maintain friendly relations with Burma and to assist them in their fight against Communism? Cannot the Minister take a less uncompromising attitude towards this matter and invite the Burma Government to send a financial mission to London to discuss it, before he behaves in such a cavalier fashion?
    Sir A. Salter: We are still awaiting a reply from the Burma Government. I do not think there is anything I can add, pending the receipt of that reply, to what I have said already.
    Mr. F. J. Erroll: Have the Burma Government given any indication when they are likely to pay this instalment?
    Sir A. Salter: We have not yet had a reply to our representations.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: When the Burma reply is received, will the Government treat it in the most sympathetic spirit, in view of the very gallant stand made by the Burma Government against Communism since 1947?
    Sir A. Salter: We shall, of course, consider very carefully what we hear from
    542
    the Burma Government. We have now in Rangoon a representative of Her Majesty's Treasury.
    Mr. Wyatt: Has the Minister consulted the Foreign Office? When I put this Question to the Foreign Office originally it was transferred to the right hon. Gentleman. As this is much more a matter for the Foreign Office than for the Treasury, is it not better to consult the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?
    Sir A. Salter: I have done so.

    Food Price Increases (Tax Allowances)
    Miss Burtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as it is official Government policy that higher food prices shall be compensated by increased taxation allowances, he will take some action to help those people receiving no benefit from the new allowances.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would remind the hon. Lady that the Budget proposals must be read as a whole. The benefits conferred were not confined to taxation allowances and, in so far as proved possible, were designed to help all sections of the community.
    Miss Burton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that of the 20 million incomes liable to Income Tax there are six million who will not have to pay any; and that below that there are a further three million who do not come within the Income Tax category? What benefits does he think those people will receive?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have already explained to the hon. Lady, the benefits are not confined to taxation allowances, but also include the wide scope of social improvements announced by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the fact that a very large number of low-paid workers are much worse off as a result of the Budget as a whole, and in view of the answer given by the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend, are we to assume that the Government now accept the view that these workers should have increases in wages?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is the view of the Government that the Budget taken as

    543
    a whole will have the effect of improving our economy to the benefit of all sections of the community.
    Miss Burton: The hon. Gentleman will certainly get his answer at the polling booths today. What advantages does he think people have in this Budget, if they have not either got two children and if they have to pay additional sums for their health bill? How does he think they will meet the increased cost of living?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is in the interests of everyone that the national economy, by which we all live, should be restored and fortified.
    Miss Burtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent rationed and unrationed foods were included in his estimated price rise of 1s. 6d. per head per week as the maximum rise for the coming 12 months; and if he will give a list of foods and estimated prices showing how the figure of 1s. 6d. was arrived at.
    Sir A. Salter: Both rationed and unrationed subsidised foods were included in the calculation of the likely average effect of reducing the figure of the food subsidies to £250 million a year. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food will announce later the remaining price increases involved.
    Miss Burton: Could I have an answer to the second part of my Question? Would it be possible to publish the list of foods in HANSARD?
    Sir A. Salter: The hon. Lady will realise that several alternative distributions of the increase would leave the total unchanged, and I am reluctant to anticipate or prejudice the future decisions or announcements of my right hon. and gallant Friend by mentioning one particular combination.
    Miss Burton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the number of alternatives to make this figure of 1s. 6d. still a valid one would equal the permutation of any football pool? Are the Government still of the opinion that the 1s. 6d. increase is a valid figure for the remainder of this year?
    Sir A. Salter: I really have little to add. There are several alternative combinations which would leave this figure unchanged. I have no reason to suggest
    544
    a change in the total figure. The precise distribution will appear as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food makes his announcements—and they are his—on the prices of particular foods.

    Rubber Companies, Malaya (Tax)
    Mr. Ronald Russellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present average estimated taxation, including export tax, paid by rubber plantation limited companies operating in Malaya and the corresponding taxation of industrial companies operating in the United Kingdom, in both cases stated as a percentage of profits.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid that the information requested by my hon. Friend is not available.
    Mr. Russell: Does my hon. Friend not agree that most of these companies pay a very penal rate of taxation; and does he not think it very unfair, considering that they have had to rehabilitate themselves after enemy occupation, and are much more heavily penalised compared with companies in this country?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend only asked for certain figures, which I regret to say are not available. The observations in his supplementary question may arise later, in a few weeks' time.
    Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that during the boom period many of these rubber companies penalised the general public?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the United States Government that the fall in the price of rubber makes it immensely more difficult for us to combat Communism in Malaya?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That point is. of course, very present in our minds.

    Van Safety Precautions (Tax)
    Mr. Barnett fannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Messrs. Kirby and West, Dairymen, Leicester, who fitted windows on each side of their 8 h.p. Ford van to ensure greater safety on the roads by enabling the driver to see through the

    545
    sides of the van, have been requested to pay Purchase Tax of 66⅔ per cent. of value of the vehicle plus the cost of the work done; and whether he will instruct his tax inspectors to withdraw this request so that vehicle owners shall not be discouraged from taking such safety precautions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am having inquiries made into this matter, and I will communicate with the hon. Member later.
    Mr. Janner: In the event of the inquiry resulting in the information which I have had, namely, that if they had not put the windows in there would be no tax and now that they have put the windows in they cannot remove them because they would still have to pay the tax, will the hon. Gentleman see that this ridiculous position is cleared up by whatever means are possible?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:That question contains three hypotheses; but I am looking into the matter, and I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can.

    Scissors (Tax)
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it is now proposed to make scissors and blanks, not exceeding 8 inches in length, hitherto exempt under Group 13 (b) of the tax schedule, subject to Purchase Tax; and how much revenue this change of classification is expected to produce in the present financial year.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It has been found that the scissors affected are not within the terms of the exemption to which the hon. Member refers. It is not possible to make an accurate estimate of the amount of revenue involved.
    Mr. Mulley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one consequence of this change of classification is the increased charge that textile workers must pay for scissors and other tools that they use in their trade, at a time when they need relief and not further impositions by the Government? Is he further aware that this change is imposing additional charges of taxation without reference to the House? What remedies can we have when officials make these decisions without reference to Parliament?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The reason for the decision is that certain facts have come to light which quite clearly show that these scissors are in a category to which the exemption does not apply. It is, therefore, the duty of the officials concerned to apply the law, in this particular case the Finance Act, 1948.
    Mr. Mulley: Will the hon. Gentleman give consideration to changing the classification so that scissors which are used as tools by textile workers do not carry this tax, as the workers are badly in need of relief, like the cutlery trade itself?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is another question.

    Wages Policy
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the Government's wages policy; and what discussions have taken place with the Trades Union Congress concerning details of this policy.
    Sir A. Salter: My right hon. Friend is in frequent consultation with both sides of industry on this as on other questions, but he does not think it appropriate to make a general statement at this moment.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reported to have made a speech last week in Saffron Walden, his own constituency, to the effect that he would try to introduce a policy of wage restraint? Is he not further aware that because of the rapid rise in the cost of living resulting from the Budget, trade unionists are compelled now to make applications for wage increases?
    Sir A. Salter: I cannot make a wide statement on that very general question now.

    Tourists (Foreign Currency)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an estimate of the amount of foreign exchange which will be used by British tourists during the current financial year as a result of recent reductions; and what estimate has been obtained of the amount likely to be spent by foreign tourists in Great Britain during the same period.
    Sir A. Salter: I am reluctant to attempt a definite forecast of our receipts

    547
    and payments under this head in 1952–53. I may remark, however, that in 1951 it is estimated that the non-sterling expenditure on travel amounted to about £63 million, and receipts to about £43 million. It would seem reasonable to hope that the reduction in tourist allowance announced will prevent a deficit this year.

    GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES (HOLIDAYS)
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he' can now make a statement on the negotiations proceeding for the payment of a second week's annual holiday with pay to industrial workers in certain industrial establishments.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Lady on 24th April.
    Miss Ward:In view of the fact that these negotiations have been entered into, presumably as a matter of justice, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that women civil servants also require their claim to be met as a matter of justice?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All relevant considerations will be borne in mind in these discussions.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some office cleaners working in Whitehall who a year ago got two weeks' holiday have had it cut to less than two weeks as a result of manipulating dates? As this represents a considerable injustice, would he look into that matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is that sort of question which makes these negotiations somewhat complicated, and perhaps to some extent accounts for their length.

    COLOMBO PLAN (REPORT)
    Mr. G. B. Draysonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much of the £1,084 million external finance required for the purpose of implementing the Colombo Plan has been forthcoming; and how much of this sum has been provided by private investment, Governments both inside and outside the Commonwealth and the International Bank;
    548
    (2) if he will make a statement on the progress of the Colombo Plan for cooperative economic development in South and South-East Asia.
    Sir A. Salter: I am glad of this opportunity of commending to the House the First Annual Report of the Consultative Committee on Economic Development in South-East Asia, which was presented to Parliament on 30th April [Cmd. 8529]. I affirm the continuing interest of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in the progress shown by this Report in carrying out the Colombo Plan. While the Report rightly emphasises that spectacular results must not be looked for at the end of the first year, it is the view of the Consultative Committee that a good start has been made and that a substantial quickening of the pace of development may reasonably be expected next year.
    When the Plan was originally prepared, in 1950, it was calculated that its total cost over six years would be £1,868 million. Of this total, £784 million would be found by the countries themselves, and £250 million would be found by releases of sterling balances, leaving £834 million required from other sources. It was always recognised that these estimates were provisional and subject to alteration in the light of developments. This Report gives the information desired by my hon. Friend more fully than would be suitable in an answer to a Question.
    Mr. John Paton: On a point of order Is it not extremely unfortunate that a very long statement of this kind, covering a Report already available to all Members, should be interpolated into the middle of Question time?
    Sir A. Salter: It was not practicable to make a statement so conveniently at the time of, or immediately before, the publication of the Report. If I may finish the statement, it serves that purpose. It goes on:
    The Report shows that the temporary improvement in the terms of trade of the countries concerned has enabled them to finance the early stages of their programmes to a large extent from their own resources. As the Report points out, the indications are that the need for external assistance in 1952-53 will be greater than during the first year of the Plan. These

    549
    needs are under constant discussion through bilateral arrangements between donor and recipient countries.
    The Report therefore records satisfactory progress during the first year of a scheme which is of great importance not only to the participating countries but to the whole of the free world.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. R. J. Mellishasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for Questions addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, on health matters to be answered by the Minister of Health.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): The Lord President of the Council is responsible to Parliament for the work of the Medical Research Council and, as I stated in the House on 20th November, Questions about that body should be put down to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works as representing the Lord President.
    Questions on health matters generally should not, of course, be addressed to the Lord President of the Council but to the Minister of Health.
    Mr. Mellish: Is it not ridiculous that the Minister of Works should be answering Questions on cancer research, for example? Is it not about time that the whole matter was looked at again, including the system of having the Lord President of the Council in the other place instead of here to answer Questions himself?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot think that this is an urgent matter, although it has become very topical. The only Question that has been asked since the Government took office about the work of the Medical Research Council was one by the hon. Member himself, on 29th April, which he very properly addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and which was answered by him. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is learning anything now, or is taking the first opportunity of making a protest against what is definitely established.
    Mr. Mellish: Surely the Prime Minister realises how ludicrous it is for the Minister of Works, of all Ministers, or his Parliamentary Secretary, to have to get up in this House and answer Questions on health matters. Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to arrange for all health Questions, including those on cancer research, to be replied to by the Minister of Health or his Parliamentary Secretary, and not by the Minister of Works?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think there is much point in what the hon. Member says, because it would only have been to his credit to have seen the point when he asked his first Question a short time ago.
    Mr. Wyatt: Does it matter in this Government which Ministers answer what Questions, because they all have an equally bad grasp of the subject?
    The Prime Minister: It certainly does not matter so much in this Government as it would if the party opposite had to answer Questions, either on foreign or on domestic affairs.
    Mr. Lewis: May I raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, for our guidance? You will recollect that for a number of weeks past, we have not been reaching much further than Question No. 45 to the Prime Minister. Some weeks back you were good enough to point out that it is not your prerogative to tell Ministers how they should answer Questions or whether, in fact, they should or should not answer them at all, and that, of course, we appreciate. But you went on to say that so far as you personally were concerned, you felt that where it was possible for Ministers to circulate long answers, it would be advisable for them to do SO in the OFFICIAL REPORT and that you would like Ministers to keep their replies short.
    May I ask, Sir, whether you can again put to the Ministers concerned, on behalf of both sides of the House, the request that when there are long replies they should as far as possible try to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Speaker: What I said on that occasion—it is still my own opinion—is that I think it is for the general convenience of the House for long answers, especially when they involve a number of figures, to be circulated. As regards the progress

    551
    of Questions generally, however, I would point out that that is to a great extent in the hands of the House. If not only Ministers' replies, but supplementary questions also, are made as brief as possible, that will assist in the progress of business.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE OUTBREAK
    The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. ROBERT CROUCH,—To ask the Minister of Agriculture what sum of money is being spent annually in research on foot-and-mouth disease.
    Mr. T. DRIBERG,—TOask the Minister of Agriculture if he will publish in HANSARD a full statement of the progress made in recent years in research into foot-and-mouth disease; whether this research has the highest priority on all necessary financial and other resources; and how soon he anticipates that it will be possible to deal with outbreaks of this disease other than by complete destruction of infected herds.
    Sir RALPH GLYN,—TOask the Minister of Agriculture (1) what evidence he has that the virus of the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is new; whether it has yet been properly identified; how long animals take to recover; and, during the present outbreak, how many animals have been slaughtered as possible contacts but have not actually contracted the disease;
    (2) whether, after consultation with the Lord President of the Council, he will consider the setting up immediately of a Veterinary Research Council on the same lines as the Medical and Agricultural Research Councils, but with the special object to co-operating with veterinary services in British Dominions and Colonies, with a view to establishing a better understanding of purely veterinary problems, especially foot-and-mouth disease.
    Mr. ANTHONY HURD,—To ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will appoint a standing conference drawn from research scientists, the veterinary profession, the Royal Agricultural Society of England, the National Farmers' Union and other representative agricultural bodies to keep under review Britain's
    552
    policy on foot-and-mouth disease so that all may be assured that the best advice is being taken in deciding and carrying out national policy.
    At the end of Questions—
    The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): With your permission, Sir, and the permission of the House, I should like to answer Questions 53, 59, 64, 65 and 67.
    The present situation is serious, but it is certainly not unprecedented, and unless it deteriorates very seriously, I have no doubt that it can be brought under control.
    Since November, 1951, until midday today, there have been 258 outbreaks of the disease in this country. This should be compared with the experience of Denmark, where 26,000 outbreaks have occurred in the last six months, and that of Holland, where there have been 23,000 in roughly the same period. Western Germany has suffered much more severely. There the total number of outbreaks in 1951 was 155,000. The outbreaks that occurred in the United Kingdom in the winter of 1937-38 and in 1941 were comparable in severity to the present one, and there were much more serious outbreaks in each of the years 1922-24 and in 1942. In every case the disease was stamped out, to the immense benefit of the flocks and herds of this country, of meat and milk production and of our valuable export trade in pedigree stock.
    Movement and marketing restrictions have been imposed over most of Great Britain because of the danger of infection having been spread through two markets. This is purely a holding operation while the veterinary staff of my Department are tracing and keeping under observation the animals concerned, which have been dispersed over a wide area. When that operation has been completed, I hope it will be possible to make substantial reductions in the area under control.
    Research on foot-and-mouth disease is carried out at the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Institute at Pirbright. A total of £93,540 has been provided for grants to this Institute in my Department's Estimates for the current financial year, and with the approval of the Treasury considerably increased funds are being made available for the development of the station. The governing body will in

    553
    future be publishing an Annual Report. The OFFICIAL REPORT, I would suggest, is not a suitable medium for the publication of reports on scientific work. My veterinary advisers keep in the closest touch with the progress of scientific research, not only at the Pirbright Institute but at similar centres overseas. In addition, machinery exists through the medium of the Agricultural Research Council, and the Agricultural Improvement Council for ensuring that any results of research which may have a bearing on administration and policy are brought to my notice. I do not consider that any new body is required for this purpose. I have asked the Chairman of the Agricultural Improvement Council to bring the matter up specially at the next meeting of the Council.
    I have no evidence that the virus of the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is new. It has been identified as type "A." Recent experience on the Continent with this virus has shown that a number of animals, particularly young animals, die, and the time taken by others to recover varies considerably.
    As it is not possible to say in every case whether, at the time of slaughter, a contact animal has contracted the disease, no figures are available as to the number of unaffected animals which have been killed.
    Finally, I would ask the House to accept my earnest assurance that there is no question whatever that in the present state of our scientific knowledge, the abandonment, or even relaxation, of the slaughter policy would involve the livestock industry of this country in the gravest disaster since the days of the cattle plague of the 19th century, with incalculable consequences to our meat and milk supplies.
    All responsible agricultural organisations are emphatic in the view that the slaughter policy is the best method of dealing with the disease in this country.
    Sir R. Glyn: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in 1947 the Ministry of Agriculture stated that they would produce a report of the work done at Pirbright? Whilst there is, according to my right hon. and gallant Friend, to be an annual report, can he take steps to publish as early as possible a report on the very valuable work which that department has done?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I will look into that.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I ask the Minister whether the help of the Medical Research Council, which lately has been carrying out more useful researches in connection with virus diseases, has been asked for?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I could not answer that question today, but I will certainly see that it is looked into.
    Mr. Hurd: May we take it that from now onwards it will be a definite and regular responsibility of the Agricultural Improvement Council to gather together scientific information and to link this with the administration of our slaughter policy and to advise the Minister regularly, so that in future there are no gaps between research discoveries and the administration of policy?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I think that the Council is a very suitable body to perform that task, and I will make certain that that takes place.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether there has in fact been any significant advance in recent years in the knowledge and treatment of this disease? Would he also be good enough to answer more precisely the second part of Question 59; whether this research has as high a priority as, for instance, atomic research on scientific manpower and equipment as well as finance?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I cannot answer the second part of that Question, but I can say that so far as my Department is concerned, it has absolutely first priority, and I am giving the very greatest consideration to all aspects of research in this very great problem.
    Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the first part of the supplementary question—has there been any significant advance in knowledge and treatment in recent years?
    Sir T. Dugdale: My answer to that is that from everything I can learn I understand that our station at Pirbright is considered throughout the world as being the most advanced in the researches they are making into this great problem.
    Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: In view of the fact that Imperial Chemical Industries have found a serum against the tsetse fly menace in Africa, is their advice sought at Pirbright in this matter?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Pirbright do take all advice from all sources.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: Is not the trouble the fact that if we did get an efficient vaccine, the cost of innoculation would be still higher than the cost of the slaughter policy?
    Sir T. Dugdale:I think that is correct to start with, but the real problem of immunisation is that it takes two or three weeks to develop immunity and in that time infection could have spread very far and wide.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could we know what proportion of the animals so slaughtered are suitable for use for human food?
    Sir T. Dugdale: A very large proportion now; it depends on whether they are cattle, pigs or sheep, but a very large proportion.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think it might be worth while for his Ministry to take the initiative in calling an all-European agricultural scientific conference to deal only with this problem at this moment? Secondly, may I ask him to consider the possibility ultimately of expanding the veterinary service, in view of the fact that we have only about 94 veterinary surgeons per million animals, and that is one of the lowest proportions in the advanced countries of the world?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I would answer that question this way: I think it might interest the House to know that my Department keeps in very close touch with the work of F.A.O. in this field, and hon. Members may be interested to know that Sir Thomas Dalling, who was until recently my Department's Chief Veterinary Officer, has now taken up the post of Chief Veterinary Officer with F.A.O., with the particular object of trying to do something to deal with this disease on the Continent of Europe.
    Major H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that there is a considerable number of
    556
    agricultural shows due to take place at a fairly early date? Will he do everything in his power to arrange that his Department give the earliest possible information to those organising those shows, if there is the remotest possibility of their having the shows, after all?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Julian Snow: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consult with the Leader of the House to see that some time is afforded so that the House can consider this question in its proper perspective?
    Sir T. Dugdale: That is a question for the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that his reply will be received with a great deal of satisfaction in the agricultural community, because they have always been behind the slaughter policy and the figures he has given us this afternoon have proved that the slaughter policy is right? Is he aware that his statement will cause a great deal of relief among the nonagricultural community, who are anxious about this question?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal—we are all glad to know that his new office will allow him to devote even more attention to his duties in this House—to state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 12TH MAY—Committee stage:
Finance Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the MacBrayne Mail Contract.
TUESDAY, 13TH MAY—Committee stage:
Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 14TH MAY—Supply (11th Allotted Day); Committee.
Debate on the European Situation.

557
THURSDAY, 15TH MAY—Supply (12th Allotted Day); Committee.
Debate on Food.
FRIDAY, 16TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House when time will be found by the Government for a debate on the Council of Europe and the White Paper issued thereon? The right hon. Gentleman will remember what the Home Secretary said at Strasbourg that every effort would be made to bring these matters before the House, and also the Foreign Secretary, I think, undertook recently that arrangements would be made for a debate.
Mr. Crookshank: I do not know whether that can come into the general debate on Wednesday or not, but on the question of a special day in the immediate future, I do not know whether that would be possible.
Mr. Herbert Morrison:>May I ask whether it is proposed to have a debate on the White Paper on transport policy, which is now available to hon. Members? It seems to me to be desirable, if only to make it known that this proposed policy cannot possibly last—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—it cannot last—and that investors in the de-nationalised undertakings had better know what the situation is.
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir; of course it was expected to have a debate, but I did not suggest it for next week, as I thought more time would be required to study the White Paper.
Mr. John Dugdale: May I ask whether time can be found for a discussion on the Report of the Colonial Development Corporation?
Mr. Crookshank: I should have thought that was a matter which could be dealt with through the usual channels, and it could be on a Supply day. possibly.
Mr. E. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to see whether a statement could be made, perhaps some day next week, after Questions on the course of military operations in Korea, since we have not had a statement on that matter for several months?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir, I will ask my right hon. Friend.
Mr. I. Mikardo: Whilst I do not presume to ask business questions about Private Members' Bills, I wonder whether I may direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Nationalised Industries (Membership of Trade Unions) Bill, because that is a rather unusual case? This was a Ten Minute Rule Measure—the right hon. Gentleman may not have heard of it—which received the unanimous agreement of the House on introduction. It deals with an important matter of interest to both sides of the House, and amongst its sponsors are eminent trade unionists on this side of the House and two authors of the Conservative charter on trade unions, on the other side of the House. It has, nevertheless, been objected to by one or two troglodytes on the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman. In view of the fact that it could be dealt with in a very short time, I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, out of the kindness of his heart, he could give a little time for a Second Reading of this Measure?
Mr. Crookshank: It is not possible to give Government time to Private Members' Bills at this stage of the Session.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Could the right hon. Gentleman confirm a newspaper report that the White Paper on the B.B.C. will be issued next week, and could he at least take the House into his confidence and tell us which day?
Mr. Crookshank: No, I am afraid I could not do that.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Before the British Museum Bill re-appears on the Order Paper, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention to proceed with the Bill before the British Museum is completely closed down by the Government in the interests of economy?
Mr. John Hynd: As he seems to be in some doubt whether the debate on the situation in Europe next week will cover the Council of Europe, can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of what it is intended to cover? Has he in mind that the debate will cover the German situation?
Mr. Crookshank: All I know is that the Opposition told me there would be a debate on the European situation. What they intend to cover is not within my knowledge.
Mr. Julian Snow: Can the right hon. Gentleman provide time for the question of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease to be discussed?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir; not next week certainly. The Supply days have been taken up for other purposes.
Mr. Alfred Robens: I wish to return to the question put by my right hon. Friend about the Council of Europe and the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it might be covered in the debate next week. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Home Secretary said at the Council of Europe in November last year:
"We shall do everything within the power of a Government to see that the affairs of the Council of Europe are adequately discussed in our national Parliament."
To push this matter on to a Supply day of the Opposition is not finding time in accordance with the speech by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The delegation is shortly to go to Strasbourg, and it seems to me that that promise of the Home Secretary should be carried out; or is it that that promise, together with the views of the Prime Minister oh the Council of Europe, have completely changed now that the right hon. Gentle. man is Prime Minister?
Hon. Members: Answer
Mr. Crookshank: I have already answered. I do not know exactly what is to be covered in next week's debate, but I cannot find any time in the immediate future for a further discussion because we are concerned with getting the Finance Bill through this side of Whitsun.
Mr. Attlee: We are asking for a discussion because there are a great many important matters concerning Europe, notably the question of any discussions with Russia. A White Paper has been issued by the Government on the Lisbon talks. All these matters should be
560
expounded by the Foreign Secretary to the House. The other is an entirely different matter in respect of which we have a pledge by the Government that they will bring these matters before the House. That surely should be in Government time?
Mr. Crookshank: These things are closely linked and could certainly be dealt with in Wednesday's debate. [Interruption.] I do not say they will be, but they could come under the terms of reference given to me about it. I have had no notice that this question was to be raised. Certainly I can go no further now about it.
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: Would the right hon. Gentleman re-consider the point about the undertaking given by the Home Secretary on behalf of the Government to the Council of Europe that Government time would be used to bring before this House the affairs of the Council of Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that pledge is kept so that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs does not have to apologise to the Council of Europe and humiliate all of us, as in the past?
Mr. James H. Hoy: I should like to put the point that the Foreign Secretary has within the last few weeks also submitted further proposals for the future work of the Council of Europe. Perhaps on the occasion which the Government are to provide we could give full consideration to the proposals of the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Those of us who have not been humiliated would like the Government to prepare themselves in order to inform the House upon what democratic basis the representatives of this House are selected and not elected to attend the Council of Europe? Who determines the policy, for whom are they speaking, and can the country be informed on what democratic basis this selection takes place?
Mr. Crookshank: That really is not a question for me. As far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, they might ask their own Leader.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 6th May.]
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  FINANCE BILL

    Clause 6.—(VEHICLES (EXCISE).)
    Amendment proposed:
    In page 7 line 42, after "vehicle," insert:
    "and other than a mechanically-propelled vehicle not exceeding ten horse-power which was registered under the Roads Act, 1920, for the first time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven."—[Mr. Jay.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    4.20 p.m.
    The Chairman: Mr. Eric Fletcher.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: On a point of order, Sir Charles. I was in the course of concluding my remarks on this Amendment when Progress was reported, and I should like permission to finish.
    The Chairman: This is a new Committee and anybody can be called as often as they catch my eye. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) will not mind if his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) proceeds with his original speech.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I understand that my hon. Friend does not object to my concluding my remarks on the Amendment and I am much obliged to him. I will round off the argument that I was earlier seeking to deploy.
    I should first like to express satisfaction that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is still Financial Secretary to the Treasury. When I read this morning's newspapers, I had a fear that some other hon. Member might be
    filling that rôle, in which case it would have been necessary for me to recapitulate in extenso what I had said on the previous occasion. Fortunately, that is not now necessary. I understand that the Financial Secretary even has a copy of what I then said before him.
    572
    I said that, as a result of the Clause which we are seeking to amend, the Government are imposing a penalty upon about 700,000 owners of cars of under 10 h.p. which were first registered before 1st January, 1947. That figure was not challenged at the time and I assume it to be approximately correct. The 700,000 car owners are being unfairly exploited and penalised. They will have to pay more tax in order to subsidise the relief given to owners of pre-1947 cars of 15, 20, 25 or 30 horse power. The tax for owners in those categories will come down from as much as £30 to £12 10s. and they will thus obtain a substantial saving.
    It might be argued by the Financial Secretary on grounds of administrative convenience that it is much more economical of effort in the various tax offices to have one flat rate applicable to all cars. I am willing to concede that argument, but there is a limit beyond which administrative convenience should not be pushed, because the result of going beyond that limit will be to inflict hardship and injustice on this small but deserving class of motor car users.
    I hope that during the discussion the Financial Secretary will indicate what would be the exact cost of the concession we ask him to make. Figures which have previously appeared are somewhat puzzling. When some of us were advocating a £10 flat rate for cars as long ago as 1947. we were told that the cost of applying it to the benefit of the pre-1947 cars would be £5,500,000. In 1949, for some unexplained reason, that figure had gone up to £5,750,000. In 1950, when the matter was again raised, we were told that the cost would be about £6 million.
    I find it difficult to understand why the figure is rising, except on the assumption that a lot of pre-1947 cars are rising from the grave and are now once more to be found touring up and down the highways and byways of the country. Is it a fact that more of the old cars are coming on the roads? That is the only explanation I can find to account for the increased sum which the concession would apparently cost.
    The cost of the concession would be small, especially if taken in relation to the total Road Tax yield of £300 million. Knowing how well the Financial Secretary has argued this matter on previous

    573
    occasions, I am convinced that he will want to do justice to the users of small pre-1947 cars. I cannot believe that he will argue that it is necessary to take from the poorer car owner in order to subsidise the richer car owner.
    I hope the Financial Secretary will take advantage of his unique opportunity of being the first Minister on the Front Bench not to execute a somersault on something he has said on a previous occasion. If the hon. Gentleman stands by what he has said on this subject on previous occasions, he can have the unique honour and distinction of being the first Minister who, on reaching office, stands by what he said when he was in Opposition.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I cannot help feeling that, when making these new proposals for taxing motor cars, the Chancellor of the Exchequer overlooked the glaring injustice which it is the object of the Amendment to remedy, and I cannot help feeling that the Financial Secretary will wish to remedy the injustice.
    The basic proposal of the Budget to have a flat rate of £12 10s. per vehicle for all motor cars whether first taxed before 1947 or afterwards was sound in principle, but it has, as I am sure the Government have now recognised, produced a quite inequitable and unjust effect upon the owners of cars of less than 10 h.p. which were first taxed before 1947.
    The result of the Chancellor's proposals is to give a very considerable benefit to the owners of all the large cars of priorto-1947 vintage, such as the Rolls Royces, the Daimlers, the Bentleys and all the expensive fashionable cars. All those car owners will derive great benefit; in future they will have to pay a tax of only £12 10s. compared with the very much higher rate of tax which they have paid hitherto.
    I have no objection to the Chancellor giving concessions of that kind to the owners of large and expensive cars. If the Tory Party think that it is a good thing to give away revenue in that manner, I have no quarrel about it, and there is no Amendment on the Order Paper in my name or the names of my hon. Friends to prevent them doing that, but we do object to this typical illustration of the neglect of the interests of the
    574
    small men. It is typical of the Tory Party that it seems to be quite oblivious to the hardships which are caused to a small deserving class of car owners. Why should a man who has an old car, perhaps a 7 or 8 h.p. car going back to 1938 or 1939, and who for years has only been paying £10 in tax, have to pay £12 10s. a year?
    4.30 p.m.
    There is no question of administrative convenience or simplicity in this. I have no objection to administrative simplicity or to neat and tidy arrangements, but in my view they are carried too far if they are introduced at the expense of small, deserving people who are trying to keep a car and who have budgeted for years on the basis that they would only have to pay a £10 tax. Why should they suddenly have to pay a tax of £12 10s.? There is no rhyme or reason to justify this kind of punitive, irrational and illogical taxation.
    Something was said by my right hon. Friend about the increase in the price of petrol. I thought the Chancellor added insult to injury when he said that perhaps these people would have to use less petrol. But they are entitled to use petrol in the same way as anybody else, and if they do not use so much it is because they cannot buy so much. This may appear to be a small matter to some hon. Members on both side of the Committee, but I think it is a matter of principle.
    As I have said, this is an indication of the reckless disregard by the Tory Government of the rights and interests of the small man, and I hope that without any further debate we shall hear from the Government that they are prepared to repair the injustice contained in the Clause as it stands and to accept this Amendment.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): First of all, may I express my appreciation to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) for his very kindly references to a speech made by me in this Chamber two years ago? I am bound to say that my subsequent consultation of that speech has not caused me to dissent from his views on its merit. It has, however, disclosed the fact that whatever it may have been as a work of art it was not effective in persuading the hon. and gallant Gentleman

    575
    to come into the Lobby with me, since his assent to the proposition which I then put forward was confined to verbal action and his physical action took him to the other Lobby. However, I am grateful for his courteous comments.
    This Amendment is intended to prevent any increase in the taxation on any pre-1947 car. It would leave the position that £12 10s. would be the maximum rate applicable to any pre-1947 car and the flat rate for any post-1947 car. I think that fairly states what would be the effect, and is, I am sure, the intention of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the night before last. There is one immediate objection to it of a kind which I am sure is not unfamiliar to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), and that is that it would cost a substantial amount of revenue. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), asked how much. The figure is £1,400,000.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is nothing.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman says it is nothing, but when, during the last few years, I attempted to extract from the right hon. Gentleman very much smaller concessions than this, he certainly did not regard £1,400,000 as nothing. It is obviously a factor which this Committee and any Chancellor of the Exchequer has to take into account, and to take perhaps the more seriously into account when it is appreciated that the Clause as a whole with its introduction of a flat rate for motor car taxation—a proposition which in general and in principle has been urged for a good many years as the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton reminded me-involves some loss to the Revenue.
    The cost is £880,000 this year and £1,300,000 in a full year. Therefore, if we add to that the £1,400,000 which this Amendment would involve the cost of introducing a flat rate scheme of motor taxation would be put up to the substantial total figure of £2,700,000. That, obviously, is a very serious factor as I am sure all hon. Members, whatever their views on this particular Amendment, will in principle agree.
    576
    There is also, of course, the practical point which I think the hon. Member for Islington, East, admitted had some validity, though he did not think very much, that, administratively, a general flat rate is easier and therefore more economical in staff and administration. That, again, is a factor to which I am sure the Committee will wish to give due weight when considering what it thinks about this Amendment.
    The right hon. Member for Battersea, North, and the hon. Member for Islington, East, this afternoon, put some emphasis on the position under this Clause as it stands of the small car owner. They both emphasised that in the case of the smallest cars there was a substantial proportionate increase in the rate of duty. To get the matter into proportion let us see how it works out. The 10 h.p. car owner remains unaffected by the change and continues to pay £12 10s. Therefore, the only people adversely affected are the owners of cars of 9 h.p. and less. The 9 h.p. car is, at the moment, taxed at £11 5s. and, therefore, there is an increase of 25s., which is actually less, of course, than the increase that falls on the owner of the post-1947 car whose rate of tax rises from £10 to £12 10s.
    The 8 h.p. car of pre-1947 vintage comes into exactly the same position as the post-1947 car of any horse-power. The tax goes from £10 to £12 10s., though one can appreciate that even that sum is a serious matter for some people. Those people with the pre-1947 8 h.p. car are being treated in the same way as the generality of post-1947 car owners. It is only when we get below the 8 h.p. car, to the 7 and the 6 h.p. car, that the increase becomes proportionately fairly substantial.
    The tax on the 7 h.p. car would, under the Clause as it stands, go up from £8 15s. to £12 10s. The number of these vehicles is not at the moment very large. So far as I know it is under 10,000. Then, of course, the heaviest increase quite obviously falls on the 6 h.p. car. Again, there are very few of these—under 100—registered at the moment, but the increase in tax is, of course, proportionately fairly severe—from £7 10s. to £12 10s.
    It appears from that analysis that a disproportionately heavy increase falls on

    577
    the comparatively limited number of vehicles in the pre-1947 6 and 7 h.p. classes. In view of that, my right hon. Friend has been giving consideration to the special case of those owners of 6 and 7 h.p. cars which, as I have said, would under the Clause as it stands find themselves having their rate of duty as a matter of percentage very heavily increased.
    He has come to the conclusion that it would be right on the Report stage to recommend to the House, as it will then be, that in the case of the 6 h.p. and 7 h.p. cars the amount of increase should not be allowed to exceed 25 per cent. That is precisely the percentage of increase which falls on all post-1947 cars and falls equally, of course, on the pre-1947 car of 8 h.p.
    My right hon. Friend considers that that concession would deal with the really hard cases. I am not saying that those not covered by that concession may not feel the burden in some cases and, of course, one of the difficulties of this matter is that it is very difficult in practice to be sure whether small cars are owned by wealthy or less wealthy people. There are hon. Members of this Committee who own cars, which can be seen in Palace Yard, of quite inconspicuous dimensions, and I believe that one of the 6 h.p. cars belongs to an hon. Member.
    But, on the whole, it is reasonable to say that the small horse-power car, by which is generally meant the pre-1947 Austin Seven type, is probably on balance owned by people less well off than the average of car owners, though I think the Committee will agree with me that it is awfully difficult to draw any firm distinction.
    At any rate, the steps my right hon. Friend will take on the Report stage of the Bill will mitigate hardship for that type of car owner. Owing to the very limited number of cars involved the cost of this concession is something in the neighbourhood of £15,000. That emphasises the fact that these hard cases are very limited in number. For the rest, the overwhelming majority of hon. Members have desired over the last few years that we should introduce a flat-rate for motor taxation.
    Indeed, the speech of mine to which the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton
    578
    was good enough to refer was directed to that theme, as was his own on that occasion and those of other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. It would not be possible to do that without a loss over the year of £7 million. Therefore, I would recommend to the Committee the proposals contained in this Clause as offering the solution forecast as long ago as 1947 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), of an overall flat-rate but tempering the wind to the shorn automobile in the way in which I have suggested the Chancellor will do on the Report stage.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: Perhaps I should say straight away that although the hon. Gentleman has not gone nearly as far as we suggested to meet this injustice, he has, nevertheless, directed his mind to the most severely hit category of cases. I did not quite follow the figures. The hon. Gentleman told us that the whole concession we suggested would cost £1,400,000. He told us that the proportionate increase in taxation is far more severe in the case of the 6 h.p. and 7 h.p. cars, which I agree is the case, but, finally, he informed us that to give a proportion of the concession we ask for, in those cases only, costs £15,000 which seems to me a rather extraordinary discrepancy. I suppose the answer is that there is a greater number of cars of more than 6 h.p. and 7 h.p. involved.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thought I made it clear that the 6 h.p. category is negligible in numbers—under 100—while there are under 10,000 of the cars of 7 h.p.
    Mr. Jay: We argued this as a case for equity to the small man and I think the hon. Gentleman has regarded it in that spirit and has gone a fair way to meet us. Therefore, I shall not ask my hon. Friends to pursue the matter further and press the Amendment to a Division though we shall look with interest at the proposals in detail on the Report stage.
    The hon. Gentleman said he will limit the increase in taxation to 25 per cent. Does he mean the duty will be merely increased by that amount in the present financial year and he looks forward to its going up perhaps by the whole amount in subsequent years, or is it the Chancellor's intention that it should go up by

    579
    this amount now and remain there in the future in the case of small cars?
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is impossible to bind my right hon. Friend in subsequent Finance Bills or any of his ultimate successors. We have no present intention of providing this concession other than on a permanent basis. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this category of cars will gradually die out, if that is the appropriate expression.
    Mr. Jay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I beg to move, in. page 7, line 43, to leave out "twelve pounds ten shillings," and to insert "ten pounds."
    The effect of this Amendment would be to reduce the flat-rate for taxation from £12 10s. to £10. I move the Amendment mainly for exploratory purposes. It was necessary, in accordance with your Ruling, Sir Charles, to move the Amendment separately from the one we have just been discussing. But in the course of our discussion of that Amendment the Financial Secretary has given to some extent the information I was seeking to obtain.
    It is quite true that this £12 10s. flat-rate hits the small man hard. We have tried to secure for him some measure of fair play and he has received a little consideration from the Financial Secretary in the statement the hon. Gentleman has just made. The hon. Gentleman will remember that before the war motoring organisations consistently urged the revision of the taxation system by abolishing the horse-power Duty altogether and substituting a small annual registration fee which would be supplemented by revenue coming from the fuel Duty itself. This "pay-as-you-go" method would have been more equitable in that it would have related the tax paid to the actual use made of the vehicle.
    The total fuel taxation this year will realise £65 million and the total from Road Fund taxation will be over £300 million. In view of those enormous sums it is not unreasonable to press that the rate should have remained at £10. The comparatively small amount involved
    580
    in the adoption of the £10 flat-rate Duty for all cars of 8 h.p. and above would not represent a very great drain on the Exchequer in the light of the large amount the Government are now seeking to obtain from car users.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has very properly said, a good deal of the ground on this Amendment was traversed by his hon. Friends and himself on the previous one. This, of course, is a proposal that goes a good deal further than did the previous Amendment. It means having the flat-rate system on the old basis of £10. As I told the Committee in the debate on the previous Amendment, if this Amendment were inserted in the Bill it would cost the Revenue the substantial sum of £7 million. Therefore, in the present state of our national economy it is not possible for my right hon. Friend to accept it.
    Perhaps I might add that it must puzzle hon. Members, as it puzzles me, to find that the cost of this proposal has steadily risen since it was put forward some years ago. I am speaking from memory, but I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, gave a figure of something like £51 million, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), gave a figure of £6 million; and I am now putting it at £7 million.
    I believe the explanation is that we all underestimated the amount of bringing out on to the road old vehicles which would result from the de-rationing of petrol. The sum now totals £7 million, and for reasons which I do not think I ought to inflict on the Committee, having already imposed them on hon. Members on a previous Amendment, it is impossible for my right hon. Friend to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The loss of revenue involved in accepting this Amendment is quite substantial, and that is the argument which has been put forward by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only person who would not agree with that would be the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. I am sorry that he is not here this after-

    581
    noon. He has not been here during the debates on this Bill as much as we would like and we quite understand the reasons for that. None the less, we greatly regret it.
    I am sorry he is not here because I should like to have heard his views on this particular point. Last year he put to the Committee an extremely interesting argument. He was then dealing with an Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. JoynsonHicks), now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. It would have cost the Government £6 million and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) resisted it on the ground of a loss of Revenue. But the Minister of State would not have it. He got up and said that the loss of revenue was, in his view, totally unimportant and suggested that why the then Opposition wanted the concession was to counter inflation, because, through the remission of tax, old cars would be brought on to the road and the resources available to the nation would be greater than the loss of £6 million which would be involved.
    He therefore rejected completely the view that it was legitimate for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to resist a concession such as proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) on the ground that the revenue was important. Before we leave this Amendment we ought to have the views of the Financial Secretary on that extremely interesting argument put forward last year by his right hon. Friend and, if so. whether he accepts it or rejects it.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I read, as I always do, with advantage what my right hon. Friend has said. He said it in somewhat different circumstances and I would point out that we are now concerned with the Finance Bill of 1952. I would urge on the Committee that in the circumstances of 1952 the loss of revenue involved in the proposed Amendment makes it impossible for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Douglas Houghton: We are hearing constantly from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from the
    582
    Financial Secretary that the cost of making a concession would mean a large loss to the Revenue. The Financial Secretary is using that argument frequently in answer to requests for concessions from this side of the Committee. We should remember, however, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering his Budget as a whole and looking at his proposals comprehensively, it probably does not escape him that certain anomalies will be revealed when the proposals come to be examined in detail on the several Clauses of the Bill. It will be strange if the Chancellor has left himself no room for manoeuvre. Surely any prudent Chancellor of the Exchequer must take account of the weakness of his detailed proposals which will be revealed under close examination of this Committee.
    While being grateful for the concession which the hon. Gentleman recently announced, I would draw attention to the fact that it would cost only £13,000 or £14,000. The number of cars which would benefit from this relief would mean, in all, less than 10,000. That is a minute concession to make. If £14,000 is the limit of the room for manoeuvre that the right hon. Gentleman has left himself, we shall have arid and profitless discussions on this Bill, and I hope the hon. Gentleman is not pleading the poverty of his right hon. Friend's capacity in answer to requests for concessions.
    Mr. Jay: Could the Financial Secretary tell us in what relevant respect circumstances are different this year from what they were when the Minister of State produced the argument which we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins)?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I were to rise to that fly which the right hon. Gentleman has thrown at me, we might be led into a discussion on the whole economic developments of the last 12 months, which, however agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman and myself, would not be agreeable to the Committee and would almost certainly be out of order.
    The Chairman: Does the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) wish to withdraw his Amendment?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: No, Sir Charles.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: As the Minister of State for Economic Affairs has entered the Chamber, although he is not actually in his place, perhaps he would tell us how the circumstances have changed since he made his pronouncement. I am sorry that the Minister was not able to come along and listen to this point, because it is the point on which he pronounced so directly last year. I feel it would be an act of courtesy to the Committee as a whole if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how he reconciles his statement last year with the completely different attitude which the Financial Secretary has taken up today.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: One of the reasons why I was unwilling to comply with your suggestion that I should withdraw the Amendment, Sir Charles, was that I saw the Minister of State for Economic Affairs coming into the Chamber and I thought he was going to take part in our debate and make his contribution. Now that he has resumed his place on the Treasury Bench perhaps he might choose to avail himself of the opportunity of explaining his position or of giving some further explanation of the point he put forward and to which attention has been drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins).
    Mr. Jenkins: For the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman, whom we are glad to have with us although we have waited quite a long time for him, perhaps I might put the exact point which I put to the Financial Secretary when he was resisting this Amendment.
    The Chairman: I am well acquainted with the point and repetition of it would be very tedious to me.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying, Sir Charles. Tedious repetition is out of order. We accept that but I would remind you that the Minister of State for Economic Affairs was not here when my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) put his point, involving £6 million. Might I suggest that as the Minister has now been good enough to take his place on the Treasury Bench and my hon. Friend has a point which he desires to put to him, even if it involves a slight repetition it should be put to him so that the Committee
    584
    might have the advantage of hearing what the Minister has to say on this matter. No doubt his comments would be of interest to Members in every quarter of the Committee.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) put a point to me. I quite understood the reply of the Financial Secretary.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Minister of State for Economic Affairs is now in his place. He reached his place with such speed that it occurred to me that he was only too anxious to answer the point. It would be unfair to him—and unfair to my hon. Friend who has been making researches in the Library and also to all those who want to have a reply—not to let the Minister of State for Economic Affairs make such reply as he is obviously anxious to make if I read the signs aright.
    The Chairman: I am not empowered to require anyone to speak. I cannot ask the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and catch my eye.
    Mr. Jenkins: I think I can put my point to the Minister very shortly. Last year, when an Amendment was moved which would have cost the Exchequer £6 million, the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of State for Economic Affairs put forward a very persuasive argument, saying that this loss would not be inflationary because of the counterinflationary effect of bringing on to the road a great number of old cars which had been laid up because of rationing. He said that that fact would counterbalance the loss of revenue.
    The Chairman: That point was raised before.
    The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Sir Arthur Salter): I am sorry I was not here for the discussion of this Amendment, but I recollect clearly the main tenor of my argument last summer. It was then addressed simply to the abolition of the great distinction between the tax upon post-1947 and pre-1947 cars. In that main respect what we are doing now exactly meets the argument which I put before the Committee last year. Anything else which I said at that time was purely subsidiary and

    585
    subordinate to that main point, on which there is nothing inconsistent with what I argued then and what is now being done.
    Mr. Jenkins: I think the right hon. Gentleman's recollection of his speech last year is somewhat imperfect, because he opened his speech with the remark that a number of his hon. Friends had argued with great force the unfairness to those who owned pre-war cars. He opened his speech by saying that he was not concerned about that. He said:
    "I am not going to say a word about the hardships or the anomalies or the effect upon the individual who happens to own an old car."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 2638.]
    He then said that he wished to apply a purely economic argument, saying that the fact that more cars would be brought on to the road would have a counterinflationary effect.
    Sir A. Salter: I was dealing with an economic point and not with regard to hardship to individuals. My argument was that there would be considerable advantages and few disadvantages arising from the abolition of the great distinction that was made at that time between taxation of post-1947 and pre-1947 cars. That was the point of my argument and that point has been met in our present proposals.
    Mr. Jay: I should like to point out that in the absence of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs the Financial Secretary told us that the explanation of the discrepancy between the Government's action this year and the Minister's speech last year was that the financial circumstances of the moment were quite different; but a few minutes afterwards the Minister came into the Chamber and gave us a totally different explanation of the discrepancy. It was not quite so easy to follow, but it was certainly quite different.
    Is not that perhaps a further example of the confusion which we all associate with this Government? Now that the Chancellor himself is here I should like to ask him if he will come to the Despatch Box and tell us which of those is the true explanation, or whether there is perhaps a third explanation.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. G. P. Stevens: I beg to move, in page 7, line 47. at end, to insert:
    (2) From the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-three a vehicle which is constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden, but is not used for the conveyance thereof for hire or reward or for or in connection with a trade or business (including the performance by a local or public authority of its functions)

    (a) if its unladen weight exceeds twelve hundredweight shall not be treated for the purposes of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, as a goods vehicle; and

    (b) if its unladen weight does not exceed twelve hundredweight, shall not be chargeable with any duty under subsection (2) of section five of that Act in respect of any use thereof for drawing a trailer;

    and section twenty-six of that Act shall apply for the purpose of determining the unladen weight of any vehicle for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purpose of determining the unladen weight of a goods vehicle for the purposes of section five of that Act.
    Clause 6 (1) provides that private cars shall pay an annual duty at the rate of £12 10s. a year. I listened with great interest last Tuesday, and again this afternoon, to the appeals from the heart, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and his hon. Friends, who asked for the remedying of an anomaly or, as they see it, an unfairness, to small car owners. I confess that I have been impressed and convinced by the arguments against those which have been adduced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister of State for Economic Affairs.
    I welcome this principle of the flat-rate tax; but I have detected an anomaly which will inflict a heavy financial penalty on a small but by no means insignificant number of people. The Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, defines a goods vehicle as:
    "… a mechanically propelled vehicle … constructed or adapted for use and used for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description, whether in the course of trade or otherwise."
    I should like to direct the attention of the Committee to the words contained in my Amendment, which are:
    "… a vehicle which is constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods or burden, but is not used for the conveyance thereof for hire or reward or for or in connection with a trade or business. …"
    Under the 1949 Act a utility vehicle, such as an estate car, a station wagon, or

    587
    something of that sort, is classed as a goods vehicle even though it may not be used for hire or reward or in connection with a trade or otherwise.
    Consequently but for my Amendment, many people who are using station wagons for private purposes will find that from the 1st January, 1953, their vehicles are classed as goods vehicles and not as private vehicles, and they will have to pay £15 or £17 10s. a year—depending on the weight—together with an extra £10 a year should they tow a trailer. Many people who live in the country use an estate car for going into market once a week to buy rationed or other foods for their poultry, or for bringing in hay for their horses and, at the weekends, for taking their children to the cinema.
    These cars are used purely as private cars and not in any shape or form for hire or reward or for trade or business; yet they may have to pay £27 10s. a year—or 220 per cent, of the new rate for private cars—from 1st January 1953. I feel that that is grossly inequitable, particularly in these days, when the owners of those cars have virtually no opportunity of changing their estate cars, which are heavily penalised, for private cars.
    My Amendment goes further. Paragraphs (a) and (b)differentiate between vehicles whose weight exceeds 12 cwt. and those whose weight is less than 12 cwt. and which tow trailers. The numbers involved are not large. I do not think there are more than 3,000 cars of this category at the moment; but it means that there will be 3,000 puzzled, discontented and—financially—very heavily penalised people. If we suppose that the number concerned is 3,000, and that the average difference between the rate as at present proposed and the rate if my Amendment is accepted is £13 a year per car, that means that the total amount involved in each year would be under £40,000. I feel that that is an amount which the Chancellor might well consider, and I appeal to him to give special consideration to this case. I hope he will accept my Amendment.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I wish to support the Amendment. In my division of Cornwall, many of my constituents live far from the centres of population and they are unable to make
    588
    those weekly visits to football matches which appear to be essential to the constituents of certain other hon. Members, as one gathers from a debate which took place earlier. They live far from a railway station and some, even, far from a bus route; and if they wish to purchase anything, or to obtain their weekly stores, or even to obtain the food for the domestic poultry, they have to get it themselves. It is not unusual for those people, in such circumstances, to buy a utility vehicle and to use it as a private car.
    When they have done so in the past they have had to pay a tax on this vehicle as a goods vehicle, although they were using it as a private car. They could never understand the reason, and I must say I have considerable sympathy with them in the feeling which they have that they are suffering from a grievance, because it is clearly anomalous that small number of private car users should be taxed on a different basis from normal merely because the construction of their car happens to be of a different type from that which is usual.
    For some time the Treasury have been receiving a minute quantity of revenue from a small group of taxpayers for no other reason than that the Parliamentary draftsmen and hon. Members have been unable to discover a suitable form of words to express what is obviously the intention of the House. I am criticising neither hon. Members nor Parliamentary draftsmen for that defect. At one time I was employed in a capacity which necessitated my giving some attention to drafting protective Clauses in Private Bills, and I know from experience that it is more difficult to draft a Clause than appears to be the case at first sight. The difficulty here has been that so far nobody has been able to discover a form of words which is an adequate definition of a utility vehicle.
    It seems to me that this Amendment provides a way round. As my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) has pointed out, Section 27 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, defines a goods vehicle as meaning:
    "A vehicle … constructed or adapted for use, or used, for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description whether in the course of trade or otherwise."

    589
    The Amendment provides that a vehicle over 12 cwt. unladen weight—and that is for the reason which my hon. Friend mentioned and to which I will refer again in a moment—which is a goods vehicle within the definition shall not be treated as a goods vehicle for tax purposes if it is not used for such conveyance
    "for hire or reward or in connection with a trade or business."
    In other words, certain vehicles, at present paying Vehicles Excise Duty under Section 5 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949—that is the Section which imposes Excise Duty on goods vehicles—will, instead of paying that duty, pay instead under Section 6, which is the general sweeping up Clause applicable to private cars. The general effect of the Amendment would be to retain in the goods vehicle classes all goods vehicles which hold, or but for a statutory exemption would hold, carrier licences issued under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.
    Thus, for example, an itinerant greengrocer using utility vehicles for the delivery of green groceries—and I may say that my own greengrocer does deliver vegetables at my own house in such a vehicle—will continue to pay tax for a commercial vehicle. Nevertheless, somebody using an identical sort of vehicle, as is the case of one of my neighbours, merely for going into the nearest town to collect the shopping, would pay the rate for the private car.
    5.15 p.m.
    I am afraid that any Amendment in any Section is liable to create some anomalies, and it may be that this Amendment will create some, for it would appear that certain types of people-such as a doctor, or a dentist or a nurse or a veterinary surgeon, using a utility vehicle and at the same time carrying certain apparatus or medicine, might nevertheless still have to pay taxation as for a goods vehicle, because they were using the vehicle in connection with a trade or business. I think it will be agreed by all hon. Members, however, that it is impossible to draw up a list of particular trades or professions which should be exempted, for if one started exempting any particular profession, there would be no end to it. If one exempted a veterinary surgeon, for instance, why not a surveyor or a dance band conveying its
    590
    instruments'? There would be no end to it.
    The Amendment includes another very small class of vehicles where I think the effect may be useful. It will be observed that any goods vehicle which is not used in connection with a trade or business will be exempted, with one exception which I shall mention in a moment, and this would seem to mean that a certain number of vehicles which are ordinary commercial vehicles, but which are not used for commercial purposes, would be exempted such, for instance, as lorries used by the Red Cross or vehicles used by the A.A. or the R.A.C. for repair vehicles, or others used by the W.V.S. All those are not used in connection with a trade or business, and it would seem that they would be exempted, as a result of the Amendment, from paying the higher tax.
    Hon. Members will observe, however, that there are some words in brackets in line 4 of the Amendment which would exclude from its benefit vehicles which are used by a local or public authority, because it is obvious that a lorry used by a local authority should not be exempted from the higher rate of taxation merely because it is not used in connection with a trade or business.
    Finally, I have one comment to make on the figures of 12 cwt. It will be appreciated by all hon. Members that at present a goods vehicle of under 12 cwt. pays only £10 tax. It would be inappropriate, and quite impossible, in an Amendment such as this, to raise the taxation on such a vehicle to £12 10s., and exclusion is, therefore, provided in the Amendment for those vehicles. However, the owner of a vehicle under 12 cwt., which is drawing a trailer, not only has to pay £10 for the vehicle, but pays an additional £10 for the trailer and proviso (b) is added to the Amendment to exclude the trailer in those circumstances.
    The net result of this rather technical Amendment seems to be this: that a goods vehicle which is a goods vehicle within the definition of the Act, will nevertheless pay the lower rate of taxation of a private car if it is not used for hire or reward or in connection with a trade or business, if it is over 12 cwt.; but if it is under 12 cwt., it will continue to pay the existing tax of £10 and no more, whether it has a trailer or not.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): In the atmosphere of sweet reason which is prevailing, I think it would be fair and reasonable that, after a concession to the other side of the Committee, one should also be made to my hon. Friends. May I congratulate them on the skill with which they have framed their very elaborate Amendment? I have tried very hard to improve it, but finally have decided that it meets all the difficulties which are inherent in making such a concession.
    I have looked very carefully into the question of whether giving this concession would lead to the danger of abuse or evasion by commercial users of goods vehicles, and I am advised, after the most careful examination, that it is unlikely to do so. Nevertheless, I must give a warning which would cover myself, I hope for many years to come in my present office, or my successors in this office, that if an ingenious manufacturer contrived to develop a utility vehicle weighing less than 12 cwt.—the figure included in the Amendment—deliberately to exploit the £10 rate by its being capable of use as a private car without paying the E12 10s. flat rate, and thereby spoiling the sense of the Amendment, I am quite certain that we should have to look at the matter and to deal with it faithfully in any future Finance Bill.
    I only put that in because I think that, subject to that, the danger of abuse is practically negligible, and this is a legitimate case which I am assured for some years has been regarded by the authorities as an anomaly. I am therefore glad to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer either confirm or deny the cost? I think the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) said that he thought the cost would be in the region of £40,000 a year. Is that so?
    Mr. Butler: As far as I can calculate, those figures are correct. As my hon. Friend seemed to be singularly well informed, I did not add further to the tedium of the Committee by repeating the matter.
    Mr. Stevens: On behalf of the owners of these estate cars, of whom I am told there are 3,000, may I say how very much they will appreciate the Chancellor's generous acceptance of this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, at the end, to add:
    (4) For the purposes of section ten of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949 (which relates to trade licences), a person who carries on a business consisting wholly or mainly of collecting and delivering mechanically-propelled vehicles, and not including any other activities, except activities as a manufacturer or repairer of, or dealer in, mechanically-propelled vehicles, shall be deemed to be a dealer in mechanically-propelled vehicles.
    This subsection shall be deemed always to have had effect.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to put beyond doubt the eligibility of the car collection companies to be entitled to use trade licences. As the Committee are no doubt aware, those are the companies which collect the cars at the works and take them either to the showrooms or to the ports. They have operated under trade licences, but a recent High Court decision on another point has raised some doubt as to whether they are eligible. It is quite clear that they should be. The cars are very often taken from the works to the ports overnight, and it would be very oppressive to insist on these companies taking out an ordinary licence for a period less than a month. To put the matter beyond doubt and to regularise the existing position, I am moving this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would the Financial Secretary explain to us exactly why subsection (3) is inserted in the Clause? I have been looking at the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, and have been trying to check the cross-references; I may have it right, but I have a strong suspicion that I have not. Would the hon. Gentleman please explain it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad to do so. Subsection (3) arises from subsection (2). Subsection (2), as the Committee will note, secures that vehicles used for Civil Defence purposes shall be exempted from licence, but if the amendment made by subsection (3) were not made, that amendment in subsection (2) would be nugatory because it would still remain an offence to operate them without a licence.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7.—(ABOLITION OF SPECIAL PROVISION FOR UTILITY ARTICLES, AND RELATED AMENDMENTS.)
    Mr. Austen Albu: I beg to move, in page 8, line 19, after "articles," to insert:
    "with the exception of furniture."
    The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner): This Amendment goes with the Amendments in page 9, line 8, at the end to insert:
    "except in regard to furniture."
    Line 9, leave out from "section," to "shall," in line 10; line 11, leave out from "fifty-two," to the end of the subsection; Clause 8, page 9, line 25, leave out paragraph (c); and in page 10, leave out lines 9 and 10. The Amendment in page 8, line 19, has been selected, but discussion will not be allowed on the remainder. Discussion on the first Amendment will cover those.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I take it, Sir Leonard, that you are not now deciding anything about how the discussion on Clause 8 should take place? I gather that you are merely deciding how we should discuss Clause 7. Some of the Amendments to which you have referred apply to Clause 8.
    The Temporary Chairman: My remarks do not in any way relate to any discussion on the question that the Clause stand part.
    Mr. Albu: The purpose of this Amendment, as of the others to which attention has been drawn, is to exclude furniture altogether from the operation of the Clause. In the Budget debate the President of the Board of Trade, speaking on 13th March, said:
    " … I propose to leave furniture as it is. It was referred to separately by the Douglas Committee. It provides a greater degree of quality specifications than others, and, for various other reasons, I propose to accept the Report of the Committee and to leave it for the moment—for the moment only—as it is while I conduct an inquiry to see what is the best to be done for the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1585.]
    We were, therefore, extremely surprised when we received the Bill to find that the Government had, in fact, taken powers in the Bill to introduce the D scheme and to destroy the present Utility scheme for furniture by Treasury order.
    594
    The position of furniture, as has been pointed out by the Douglas Committee and as was recognised by the President of the Board of Trade, is very different from that of most of the other commodities which are being dealt with in this Bill and for which the D scheme has been introduced. First of all, well over 90 per cent. of the total furniture manufactured in this country at the present time, and indeed manufactured since the end of the war, comes within the Utility specifications and is, therefore, tax free.
    Although furniture is generally classed as among those articles which are consumer goods, it is of course different from clothing and easily consumable goods because it covers domestic articles which are purchased at very infrequent intervals. It is, in fact, in the nature of domestic capital. It is unlikely that the average family spend very much on furniture after the initial purchase when first setting up home after marriage. There may be some purchases later on, but, on the whole, it is a heavy capital outlay at one time in the family life.
    An interesting feature of the post-war market for furniture, which is very relevant, is the very great increase in sale among what are normally considered middle and low income families. The existence of full employment for many years, apart altogether from the big backlog of demand after the war, and the relatively high wages and conditions have meant a bigger demand for furniture, not from those able to afford luxury furniture or expensive furniture but from those who are able to afford furniture at low prices. It is these people who have been most helped by the existence since the end of the war of the Utility scheme guaranteeing the quality of the furniture and ensuring that it can be provided at low prices particularly because it was tax free.
    If the scheme is destroyed at the present time, and especially if nothing is put in its place, there is a very serious danger indeed that the great mass of people, who, as I say, are only able to buy furniture perhaps once in a lifetime and to whom it represents a very heavy outlay, will be forced into buying cheaper quality furniture and qualities which will not be subject to any guarantee whatever of standard specifications.

    595
    5.30 p.m.
    The Utility scheme has meant, not just a guarantee for the consumer but almost, I think, a revolution in the trade. There is no doubt that for many years before the war in large parts of the furniture industry—not all of it, by any means, but large parts of it—it was a sweated industry, an industry with extremely bad working conditions, very often giving rise to shoddy products, and an industry in which the safeguards the consumer might expect to receive were certainly not present.
    Since the war, in many parts of the country, the industry has become among the most up to date and progressive of our industries; it has become highly mechanised; production and productivity have increased at a very great rate; and at the same time the quality of the product has improved, due partly to standardisation and partly to the new methods employed. In the last few years this has been assisted by the existence of a progressive development council which is trying to improve the standard of quality, is conducting research into methods, and is generally assisting the industry in the progress it has been making.
    The fact that the Utility scheme was a guarantee of quality—whatever it may have been in the last year or two in other industries—was recognised by the Douglas Committee, who said in paragraph 28:
    "Enforcement of the specifications has, however, set a minimum standard of quality and has undoubtedly eliminated much of the very low quality cheap furniture which was made before the war."
    I think I am right in saying that the majority of manufacturers are opposed to any great change, certainly at the present time, until there has been at any rate a thorough investigation of what could be put in place of the Utility scheme. The chief trade union, the National Union of Furniture Trades Operatives, is certainly against any change being made at present.
    I know the answer will be that discussions are going on between the trade and the President of the Board of Trade about what might be put in place of the present Utility scheme. The reason for our putting down these Amendments is
    596
    to ensure that no drastic change is made in the existing scheme simply by Treasury order. This is not just a question of the alteration of a tax schedule, or the alteration of the articles in a tax schedule. The whole thing is tied up with the existence or otherwise of the Utility scheme. of guaranteeing qualities, as well as providing tax free furniture, and it would be quite wrong if at some time during the course of the year the whole of this scheme and of these arrangements in the furniture industry were to be swept aside simply by the imposition of a Treasury order.
    There are very great difficulties, as I have no doubt the Treasury are finding, in defining articles of furniture for the purposes of introducing any alternative scheme to the present one. The items of furniture vary in size and in exact use, and very often not very easily understood terms are used to describe them. It has been pointed out to me that it would be difficult to distinguish between a hall wardrobe, a linen wardrobe and a linen cabinet; or between a china cabinet and a bookcase; or between a credence cupboard, a court cupboard and a sideboard. I do not even know what some of these terms mean. It would be extremely difficult to prevent articles being made in sections so that, by selling two sections separately, they would avoid paying any tax which would impose on them if they were sold joined together. These are only examples of the sorts of difficulties the Financial Secretary will run into if he tries to introduce a scheme of this sort too hurriedly.
    The very widespread range of prices of tax free furniture at the present time would mean that if the D scheme were introduced and the tax fixed at anything like 50 per cent. of the present Utility production, the results could be very serious. It would mean that all the better class utility goods, for which there has been a considerable market recently, would come under a pretty heavy tax, with very serious results to the consumer. Let me give some examples of the widespread prices of retail Utility furniture: wardrobes vary from £15 15s. 6d. to £33 13s. 6d.; sideboards, from £15 15s. 6d. to £26 13s. 6d.; a dining room chair, from £3 2s. to £6 8s. 6d., and fireside chairs from £8 16s. to £11 10s. Unless there were some very complicated system

    597
    and a very elaborate list of articles differentiating between those of different quality and different specification, any attempt to fix the level half-way in the price schedule would mean that a very large number of these articles, which are bought by people of moderate means, would be pretty heavily taxed. If there were any attempt to provide the multiplication of definitions which would otherwise be required, I think that the administrative expense would very much reduce the revenue the Treasury could hope to receive from the tax.
    I do not need to remind the Committee that this trade, along with other consumer goods industries, has been suffering from a considerable slump. In these times, when competition is becoming pretty severe, attempts may be made to evade the specifications laid down, as in the old days. Those were the times when extremely shoddy, badly made furniture was produced in the less reputable workshops. An example of the sort of thing that goes on under these conditions is to be found in a report of a court case in "The Times" of 17th April, which says:
    "Having opened a utility divan which was an exhibit at the Stratford Magistrates' Court yesterday, a Board of Trade inspector searched among the flock with which the mattress had been stuffed and produced a number of cigarette ends, ice cream papers, match sticks, string, pieces of rag, and several scraps of paper which included an old love letter."
    Of course, under the Utility scheme the manufacturer of that divan was brought to court and fined £50 on each of three summonses. But if the Utility scheme goes, there will be no means of preventing that sort of thing taking place. Where the Utility scheme has already been abolished, in the case of bedding, standards are already being lowered. The Trade journal, "Furniture Record." for 11th April says:
    "There is already evidence of the jettisoning of decent standards that many of us have feared would follow the end of the utility scheme.
    It is, perhaps, only the beginning of the rot, but with the growing struggle for business it could spread like a forest fire. Already approaches have been made to spring makers to cut size and quality. … Already at least one spring interior filled entirely with flock without padding has re-appeared on the market, marking a return to one of the worst abuses of the competitive days of the middle 'thirties."
    598
    I have been told that whereas the number of springs in a mattress under Utility specification is 288, one manufacturer has been putting a mattress on the market with only 180 springs in it. The reputable members of the trade are extremely worried about what is taking place under these conditions. I think that it would be a disaster for all those engaged in furniture manufacture, as well as for all those who have to buy furniture, if the present safeguards were destroyed overnight.
    So far as I can see, there is no hurry about this matter. There is no reason at all why the Chancellor should take powers under this Bill to introduce such drastic changes by Treasury order. The trade estimates that it will take at least 12 months to work out any new scheme and, under those circumstances, it is extremely difficult to see, unless it is the intention of the Chancellor to introduce the scheme irrespective of the position which the discussions between the President of the Board of Trade and the industry have reached, why it is necessary for the Chancellor to take powers under this Bill.
    Let them go on with the discussions by all means if they want to. Surely what the Government can do is to put the results of their discussions in a White Paper or to make them known in some other way, so that there is an opportunity for Members of the House to debate this matter, consult their constituents and find out what the effects would be; and then if it is necessary for a new scheme to be introduced it could be brought forward again next year.
    The effect of these proposals at the present time will be to worsen the conditions under which the trade is operating, to increase the tendency to return to the standards of the past, which we all hoped had finally gone, and, undoubtedly, to increase the cost to young married couples of setting up homes.
    I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will indicate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to exclude furniture from the provisions of this Clause and the next Clause, and for discussions to be carried on between the President of the Board of Trade and the industry, and that in the meantime he will

    599
    not make any sudden or drastic change which would undoubtedly be disastrous for the industry.
    Mr. Harry Wallace: I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has said. I hope that his appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be ignored. I must confess at once that many of my constituents are concerned with this industry. The industry at present is not in good shape; there is much full-time unemployment and much part-time unemployment. The demand for the goods of the industry is falling, and all those engaged in the industry are very much concerned about the future.
    In this particular industry there is no question of exports being damaged by the abolition of the Utility scheme. The exports of the industry are not very substantial, and will not affect the great mass of the products of the industry, some 90 per cent. of which is covered by the present Utility scheme.
    I want to be very brief, but I also want to put it very frankly to the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor that a promise has been given to this industry which gave much satisfaction. The President of the Board of Trade said that he was going to hold an inquiry to find out what was best to be done. He intimated to the House that discussions would go on. If this Amendment is not accepted, it seems to me that the Chancellor is prejudging the results of the discussions, and he is not implementing the promise of the President of the Board of Trade to find out what is best to be done for this industry.
    If the Government insist on abolishing the Utility scheme, then the trade expects the demand to be reduced still further and unemployment to increase. I really cannot think that the Government wish to maintain a policy, the outcome of which would be a reduction of demand and an increase of unemployment.
    I want to conclude on this note: I hope that the Government will honour this pledge, will accept this Amendment, and will not prejudge the issue until these discussions have been completed and until the President of the Board of Trade has found out what is best to be done for
    600
    this industry. It would be most unfair to abolish this Utility scheme merely because utility schemes generally are not liked. If the Utility scheme is good for this industry and good for the consumer, as I believe it to be, then surely the Government should not abolish it because it may not be a good scheme for other industries.
    5.45 p.m.
    Please do remember that we have about 34,000 marriages a month. These people wish to set up homes. We all know the difficulties today of finding a house, of paying the rent, of paying the increased fares, and of meeting the rising cost of living generally, and I think that it would be too much to increase the price of furniture and make it almost impossible for young people to set up homes. I hope that the Government will watch the outcome of the discussions, implement the pledge which has been given, find out what is best to be done for the industry, and then give us a White Paper and let us have a chance of discussing it.
    Mr. William Shepherd: I want to say a word or two on this Amendment, and I should like, at the outset, to declare a small interest in this matter as President of the Chair Frame-makers Association, so naturally I have some concern at the apparent intention at some time or another to eliminate the Utility scheme.
    I do not know what the Minister is prepared to say this afternoon, but we are most anxious that what he should do is to clear the air of any uncertainty. It is uncertainty in relation to Purchase Tax and the Utility scheme which damages trade. Whatever he is able to say today, I hope that he gives a clear impression of what is likely to happen in the foreseeable future, so that buyers will not be dissuaded from buying in the hope that some change will come about. I do not think that it is strictly necessary to take these powers under the existing Bill. I think that it might have been for the convenience of the trade and the removal of uncertainty to have left them out on this occasion.
    I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that the trade generally is in a pretty bad state, although I must point out the wonderful results achieved by the

    601
    Minister of Housing and Local Government, which gives some hope to the trade that within the next month or so and in the months that follow trade will increase.
    I do not subscribe for one moment to the view expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the trade is necessarily wedded to the idea of the Utility scheme. The objection to the change is that it may increase the price of furniture at a time when the demand is already low. I want to assure the Committee that there is no anxiety on the part of manufacturers with whom I am associated to retain the Utility scheme for its own value as a scheme. It is quite conceivable that we can arrange standards and enforce those standards so that they will give us the advantages of the Utility scheme in that respect, without disadvantages in others. I would ask the Committee to believe me when I say that the Utility scheme has had quite considerable disadvantages in the furniture trade because it stereotyped design and stultified initiative in a very unfortunate manner.
    If I may give a personal example, I would like to tell the Committee that, a few months ago, I was travelling back from Germany with a Swede, who was coming to this country to buy carpets from a firm in London specialising in oriental carpets. I said to him, "What do you buy from us, besides carpets?" and he said, "Nothing, but I used to buy furniture." I said to him, "Why do you not now buy furniture?" His reply was, "I am afraid that the designs in England today are not suitable for my trade."
    That is an example of what is happening when production, to the extent of 90 per cent. is concentrated upon Utility, with, to some extent, stereotyped designs which do not present to foreign buyers sufficiently diverse and attractive articles for the export trade. I urge my hon. Friend not to accept the view which hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward this afternoon that the trade is desperately anxious to retain the Utility scheme because of the inherent value of the scheme. They are anxious merely to avoid extra taxation at a time when trade is already bad.
    Mr. Albu: The trade, or the better part of the trade, is anxious that there should be some statutory control of standards and specifications.
    Mr. Shepherd: I think that is an entirely different argument. I concede the possibility of enforcing statutory standards outside the Utility scheme, but I am anxious to urge my hon. Friend to say that, in the next 12 months, there will be a standstill, during which time consideration will be given to the possibility of setting these standards, and, particularly, of enforcing them. If he does that, I am sure that my hon. Friend will find that the trade will be satisfied, and that, with the increasing number of houses to be built in the next 12 months, the trade itself will perhaps enjoy a happier time than it has had in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Boyd - Carpenter: The three speeches made on this Amendment have all been very reasonable and constructive in tone, and, of course, it is the fact that the Douglas Report dealt with this particular industry in a rather special way. That is the reason why this industry was not included in the general proposals in this Measure, but is being treated in the special way outlined in this Clause.
    The Committee will appreciate that the Douglas Committee, while it made a very special recommendation in paragraph 128 of its very valuable Report, did indicate:
    "We are therefore of opinion that the Board of Trade should arrange that, with the introduction of a "D" Scheme, at least the present quality standards should be safeguarded."
    It is to some extent in implementation of that conclusion that the discussions which my right hon. Friend the President and my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade are having with this industry are taking place, and that is the ground which they are covering. That is also the reason why we are dealing with this industry rather differently from the way in which we dealt with other industries within the ambit of the Douglas Report.
    I think it should be made clear to the Committee that the Douglas Report in no sense recommended treatment of this industry for Purchase Tax purposes on, in principle, any different basis to the other articles with which it dealt. I would remind the Committee of one very vivid example of the working of the present Utility scheme to which the Committee should give attention. It appears in paragraph 59, and perhaps the Committee will allow me to read it:
    "Another example is taken from the evidence submitted to us on furniture. A firm

    603
    recently produced chairs of a completely new design which are being used in the Royal Festival Concert Hall. Although this chair could have been sold within the Utility price for competitive chairs, it was not constructed in accordance with the general specification for such chairs, and so could not be included in the Utility scheme. Purchase Tax would have prevented it being sold on the home market, and so it could not be made in large enough quantities to make sales overseas a possibility."
    The Douglas Report also deals with certain of the anomalies in the application of the Utility scheme to this industry; in particular, the fact that, while covering certain classes of articles in common use, others of equally common use are not included, and are, therefore, subject to the full blast of the tax, not on any value above the D scheme, but on their total value. Therefore, the Committee were driven irresistibly to the conclusion that the present position is unsatisfactory, and, therefore, we think that the right thing to do, in the light of the recommendations of the Douglas Committee, is to carry on the discussions with the trade which are proceeding at this moment with a view to the implementation, as early as is reasonably possible, of some D scheme for this industry.
    In this connection, I would say that I differ from the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Wallace), who was inclined, I think, to disregard the export aspect of the industry. I under stood—
    Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I said it was not so important as the production for the domestic consumer, but I did not ignore it altogether.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is a matter of degree, but, from last year's figures, I find that we had furniture exports valued at over £1 million, a quarter of which went to the dollar area, so that the export aspect of this industry, which is very much affected by the so-called blind spot, is not wholly immaterial.
    At any rate, the discussions are going on. Of course, I can reassure the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) that there is no intention to deal with them in too hurried a way. It is, obviously, and the debate has made this clear if it were not clear before, a complicated and difficult matter, and, with the best will in
    604
    the world, discussions of that sort cannot be put through very hurriedly. When they have been put through, it seems to me that there really is a very strong case for putting them into effect as soon as is reasonably possible.
    I was much struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said when he indicated that, in these matters, uncertainty is one of the most harmful elements, and it is the fact that, when we have a change of tax impending, there are always risks of forced selling on the one hand and of buyers holding back on the other, and neither are good or healthy for the industry concerned.
    Therefore, I submit to the Committee that, once these discussions have come to fruitful and constructive conclusions, as I hope they will, it really is in the interests of the industry to get on with the job, to end the uncertainty, and, at the same time, to end the anomalies which the Douglas Committee found are continuing to exist in this industry. It is, of course, quite impossible, without causing confusion of an excessive character, to alter these anomalies within the existing Utility scheme. When a scheme is almost being wound up, it is difficult to try to deal with little defects in it.
    The chance of putting this industry on a more satisfactory basis in the reasonably near future is a chance which we ought to seize, but I can give the assurance that it is not intended, in a matter of this complexity, unduly to hurry those on either side of the industry who are now engaged in the discussions with my right hon. Friend the President and my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
    6.0 p.m.
    That is why we seek to deal with it in this way. If we did not, it would not be possible to deal with this until next year's Finance Bill. That would mean, if, as, I am sure, all hon. Members hope, these discussions are comparatively speedy and satisfactory, that, having come to a conclusion which, quite obviously, would be known throughout the industry, we should have to continue to operate the old Utility scheme, despite all the criticisms the Douglas Committee has made of it, until next year's Finance Bill. That would not be fair to

    605
    the industry—to those who work in it and those who earn their living from it. Therefore, we have thought it much better to put into this Bill a provision which would enable us, when agreement is reached then to proceed with reasonable speed to put the scheme into effect.
    I think that we can also claim that we have properly safeguarded the rights of this Committee in the matter. Once the scheme is formulated it can be put in a Treasury Order. That Order is subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure in the House, and, therefore, if the Committee gives us this Clause in its present form tonight, it will still retain the right to pass judgment on the particular proposals when they are embodied in that Order laid and brought forward under the affirmative Resolution procedure.
    I would, therefore, suggest that the criticisms which hon. Members may have—or may think they have—of a scheme not yet formulated would probably be more conveniently put forward when that Order is made; with the reassurance that the Committee has that, by virtue of the affirmative Resolution procedure, the Government have still to come to Parliament and put the proposals before it.
    That is the reason—and no other—why we have dealt with this matter in this particular way. The discussions—to sum up—can proceed; we all hope that they will be quick; the assurance I have given is that no undue haste will be pressed if difficulties arise; but if a successful solution is arrived at the industry and those concerned will not have uncertainty hanging over them for months; while an old system proceeds to be terminated a new one can be put into effect; the delay which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle so rightly fears will be able to be kept to a minimum and, at the same time, the rights of the House of Commons and of this Committee will be safeguarded.
    Mr. Jay: I must say that I found the last speech of the Financial Secretary singularly unconvincing. He affected the same sweet reasonableness in manner that he did earlier, but there was really very little reasonableness in the substance of his argument. It seems to us that really no case has been made out at all for abolishing the Utility scheme in the case of furniture or for imposing Purchase
    606
    Tax, as the Government seek to do by this Clause, on a large range of furniture which was Utility and which was previously never subject to tax.
    We object to the whole of the Government's policy in the Budget of abolishing Utility schemes and taxing a large range of goods—furniture and other kinds—which were previously Utility on two main grounds which, of course, apply entirely to furniture as well as to the other goods concerned. Of those grounds the first, of course, is that the Government are proposing a new tax on the general consumer, and, by reducing the level of price at which the tax applies, they are extending the tax, as my hon. Friend said, to a large number of families, mainly with the middle and smaller incomes. It is a new burden on the housewife and a new addition to the cost of living.
    Our second objection, as my hon. Friend also mentioned, is that, so far as we can see, this general weakening of the Utility scheme will impair the quality of a large range of British goods, including furniture, which we are now discussing. There is no doubt that Utility has given a very considerable guarantee which was of advantage to the consumer and to the community as a whole.
    The whole case made by the Douglas Committee in reply to those two obvious objections to abolishing Utility was, of course, founded on the special argument relating to imported goods and to our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that is really the basis of the whole case—that Utility and tax exemption, though desirable, are no longer practicable because of this import problem. The case of the foreign importer is that, since the British authorities have not been able to apply the Utility mark and hence tax exemption to imported goods as they have to home produced goods, that is a discrimination against the foreigner and, therefore, a breach of our international undertakings.
    The whole of that argument rested on the assumption, of course, that it was impossible to apply the Utility mark in actual administrative practice to imported goods as well as to goods produced at home. The Douglas Report, which the hon. Gentleman quoted—and, I thought,

    607
    quoted rather tendentiously, since he picked out just a few passages, though understandably, perhaps—notably in paragraphs 69, 70 and 128, makes it quite clear that it has been found possible to apply the Utility scheme to imports of furniture. It gives in paragraph 69 three reasons why that can be done—because the specifications are mainly physical; because there is a smaller number of manufacturers abroad; and because importers
    "… had the knowledge and the facilities to repair the imported furniture, or alter it to fit the specifications, before marking it as Utility."
    Then the Report goes on most specifically to say, in paragraph 72:
    "We have been told that the arrangements for including imported furniture in the Utility scheme are, on the whole, working satisfactorily.…"
    It says that that has not been so satisfactory in the case of textiles.
    What emerges is that it is not only practicable to achieve this solution in the furniture industry, but that it has actually been put into force and is working perfectly satisfactorily. Therefore, the whole case on the grounds of G.A.T.T. and imports against Utility, and tax exemption based on Utility, completely falls to the ground for furniture on the evidence of the Douglas Report itself.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, although he gave instances about some awkward cases of furniture as illustrations, the Douglas Report does not anywhere positively recommend that the Utility scheme should he abolished in the furniture industry, or argue that it is impracticable to continue the present arrangements. Indeed, it does say, in paragraph 128, most categorically:
    "In the particular case of furniture, the Utility scheme still provides some guarantee against ill-made and inferior articles",
    —whereas it was the opinion of the Committee, rightly or wrongly, that that was not so true of textiles and certain other industries.
    That being so, we are here in a situation in which it seems to us that really no case has been made for hurrying on in this fashion and asking the Committee to give the Government powers to impose this new system of taxation with no further recourse to the Committee or the House—except, of course, the affirmative
    608
    Resolution Orders which, I remember, the hon. Gentleman always used to think were an inferior sort of legislation in the last Parliament.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I put down innumerable Amendments to introduce the affirmative Resolution procedure.
    Mr. Jay: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman also frequently argued that we should have new legislation, and not delegated legislation at all—as, I think, he will agree.
    However, to return to furniture. It seems now that there are these formidable objections against the application of the D scheme in this hurried fashion to furniture. First of all, it will impose Purchase Tax on a large range of furniture which has not hitherto borne it. That is an added burden, not merely on the ordinary family but on the newly-married couple, where the burden falls particularly severely.
    We were also often told in the last Parliament, perhaps not by the hon. Gentleman himself—I have not looked it up—but by many hon. Gentlemen who used to sit on this side of the Committee, that it was wrong to tax household articles, and particularly wrong in the case of goods like linoleum, where the tax fell heavily on a family which had to furnish a new house. That argument applies with great force to this extension of the tax to furniture. That is the first objection. May I add, since the hon. Gentleman behind the Minister mentioned exports and showed a lot of knowledge on the subject, that the tax will not help exports? By extending the tax and raising the prices, we thereby limit the home market at a time of depression in the industry.
    Second, by the abolition of the Utility scheme and its possible replacement by some other scheme of which we at present know very little indeed, such guarantees of quality as we have at present, and which are very important in this industry, will be inevitably weakened.
    Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is not entirely convincing. Much of the effect must hinge upon the level at which D is fixed. If it is fixed at a satisfactory level it may help the export trade, because tax on better-class articles in the export trade will be less than it is at present.
    Mr. Jay: The abolition of the Utility scheme, unless there is some other guarantee of quality about which we at present know very little, will tend to weaken quality. The Financial Secretary is asking the Committee to agree to this proposal without our knowing what other guarantee of quality will be substituted. Third, it is admitted by everybody who has spoken that there is depression and unemployment in the industry. Extension of the tax and raising of the prices will tend to diminish demand still further, as in the case of textiles. The Government are here taking action which must intensify the depression and unemployment in this industry.
    Fourth, we are told—and I do not think it is disputed—that representatives of the organised workers and some representative sections of the management in the industry are opposed to the change, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave in moving the Amendment. Fifth, as I have tried to show, the basic argument about G.A.T.T. and imports does not apply at all to the furniture industry, which we are now discussing. Lastly, we are being asked to rush ahead, although a promise was given by the Board of Trade that there would be full discussion before final decisions were taken in this matter.
    Those arguments seem to me to add up to a formidable case against the Government and the powers for which they ask this afternoon. I should have thought we need not hurry on in this way or legislate in this wholesale fashion until the whole matter had been examined and some case had been made out. I do not say that next year the hon. Gentleman might not be able to make out a case; he certainly has not done so up to now. Whether he will be able to do so next year, we do not know. Unless he can give us more satisfaction in a few minutes, or can undertake to think about this matter again, I unhesitatingly advise my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in support of this Amendment.
    We seek here essentially to defend the consumer and the ordinary housewife against the threatened imposition of a new tax and against the further forcing up of the price of furniture. Until the hon. Gentleman can make a better case than he has put forward for doing that, we shall feel compelled to press this matter further.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not feel disposed to make a case for doing that, because that is not what I meant to do. The right hon. Gentleman has based his whole argument on an entirely one-sided appreciation of how the D scheme operates. He called it "a new tax," and he referred to an imposition of the tax on articles which did not at present bear tax. He even brought in the argument about the hardship on the young, newly-wedded couple.
    With great respect, I say that he has completely misapprehended how the D scheme works. It may be that some articles which do not now bear tax will in future bear it, but it may equally be that certain articles which now bear tax will be relieved; and that still others which now bear tax will bear it in a less degree. It is beside the point to ask me to justify the imposition of a new tax and heavier burdens on the housewife, when all that we are concerned with at the moment is the adjustment of Purchase Tax from the old system of Utility with, above it, the whole weight of tax, a Utility scheme which an independent committee appointed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) has found to be ridden with anomalies; and the substitution for it of the D scheme, with the normal D principle of half the normal tax and above that the tax gently graduated. It is not accurate to describe that as "the imposition of new burdens."
    Mr. Albu: I believe it is the case that 90 per cent. of all furniture at the present time is free of tax. By what method can we have a D scheme, unless the D has a level of 90 per cent., by which there is no extra burden on the consumer of furniture? The imposition of the D level, unless it is at 90 per cent., must impose a hard burden on the consumer. I do not see how we can mix furniture with boots and shoes, because it is something bought once in a lifetime. The scheme will undoubtedly mean higher costs for a large number of consumers.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that his 90 per cent. relates to only that part of furniture production to which the Utility specifications apply. The whole criticism of the Douglas Committee is that that is not the whole of the industry. It may be

    611
    90 per cent. tax free in a limited part of the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Very well, let me come to what the Douglas Committee said.
    In paragraph 47 the Committee pointed out among the anomalies that provision is made in the Utility scheme for chests of drawers but not for blanket chests, for cabinets to hold books but not for cabinets to hold china, and so on. Indeed, I have particulars of other articles, such as certain types of cupboard, emergency beds, linen baskets, and so on, for which there is no Utility scheme at all and which therefore, however cheap they may be or of whatever quality, do bear the full rate of Purchase Tax.
    When we are discussing the merits of this matter it is fair to appreciate that while it is true to say, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that some articles will bear tax under the D scheme which do not at present, other articles, and by no means articles of the highest quality, will be relieved of it. Therefore, the question is not whether we are to have Purchase Tax on the industry at all—that is a separate question on which separate views might be expressed—but whether we are to apply the tax by a method which creates these clearly-set-out anomalies and which exposes to the full rate of tax simple articles just because they do not happen to be in the old Utility scheme. That is the basis.
    Looking at the two systems fairly, I do not think it is possible to come to any other view than that as a matter of principle—I will come in a moment to the practical application—this is the better way to do it. The details of how best to do it are precisely the purpose of the discussions in which my right hon. Friend is taking part. Their purpose, if I may repeat it, is to carry out the recommendation of the Douglas Committee to provide that before the D scheme comes into operation, satisfactory provision for the preservation of quality shall be put into operation.
    We fully appreciate the distinction that the Douglas Committee made between this and other articles within the Utility scheme, and that in this case, at any rate, under the old scheme the quality specifications had some value to the consumer. As the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said, the Committee took
    612
    the view, rightly or wrongly, that over most of the field the specifications were not much good, but that in this direction they were. That is why, in implementation of the words which follow very closely those quoted by the right hon. Gentleman from paragraph 128 of the Douglas Report, we are having these discussions to get the quality specifications satisfactorily worked out with the expert assistance of those engaged in this important industry.
    When the right hon. Gentleman quoted from paragraph 128 of the Report, it was, perhaps, a little disingenuous when he quoted the passage whose substance I have just given—that is, that under the Utility scheme, in the case of furniture, there was some assistance to the consumer in respect of quality—and ignored the last sentence:
    "We are therefore of opinion that the Board of Trade should arrange that, with the introduction of a D scheme, at least the present quality standards should be safeguarded."
    If words have any meaning, it surely follows from that that those who drafted the Report contemplated that it would be the inevitable consequence of the Report that a D scheme would be introduced, and, therefore, they went out of their way to make this very valuable and constructive suggestion as to how it should be done.
    Mr. Jay: Surely, what those words amount to is not a recommendation by the Douglas Committee that there should be a D scheme for furniture, but a perfectly natural statement that if there should be such a scheme, there should be special safeguards for quality.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Exactly; and as the tenor of the whole Report is in favour of a D scheme, and as it is implicit in those words that they assume that a D scheme is to be operated, surely the only possible construction is that, accepting, as they do accept, the desirability of ending the anomalies to which they referred in the paragraphs I have quoted, it is the right thing to introduce these quality safeguards.
    That is one issue, but it is not perhaps the complete issue, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the procedure which we have suggested provides that this matter shall not pass from the control of the House at this stage; that the

    613
    scheme, with its details, shall be available to hon. Members to make up their minds when the Order is laid and when the Motion to approve it is moved. Therefore, it is not necessary at this stage to ask the Committee to prejudge whether such a scheme would be an improvement, but only to give us the possibility, if the discussions take place within a reasonable time, of having this matter before the House in rather less time than a full year. That is all that the Clause seeks to do.
    Mr. David Weitzman: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that it is not necessary to prejudge this matter, but that is exactly what the Government are doing by saying that the Utility scheme shall go. They do not pretend to know what is to be in its place, yet they lay down as a cardinal principle that the Utility scheme must go.
    My constituency contains a considerable number of people who are either manufacturers or employees in the furniture trade. As far as I understand it, their opinion is that the Utility scheme is a good- scheme and that it has worked very satisfactorily and ought to remain. They complain bitterly about the present unemployment and they assert, rightly or wrongly, that they are gravely afraid of the results of the abolition of the Utility scheme.
    As I understand, the Utility scheme is admittedly very good in many respects, but there is a criticism that there are a number of anomalies. But at any rate, we have something which is satisfactory and which is working, and which manufacturers generally and employees want to remain. Why should it be done away with until we know what is to he in its place? It is an extraordinary state of affairs that the Government should present a Bill containing a Clause which, as I have said, prejudges the issue completely. It says, "Abolish the Utility scheme." The Financial Secretary says, "We hope to put something in its place which will be satisfactory and which will be put before the House, so that the House can judge it."
    Surely the sensible thing is to let the Utility scheme remain and to let the trade have the benefits of it; and if the Government have a scheme that appears to
    614
    be satisfactory and should take its place, to present that scheme to the House, and then the House may judge whether the Utility scheme ought to go.
    It seems to me very ridiculous as the matter now stands that the Government should say, "Abolish the Utility scheme" and should put in its place something of which we know nothing. I can only urge, on behalf of a very considerable number of constituents, that they desire the Utility scheme to remain. I hope, therefore, that in these circumstances the Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: The Financial Secretary's speech left the situation in a very unsatisfactory state. I am quite certain that he has no desire whatever to mislead the Committee, and I know that he would not do so. I should put down the unsatisfactory nature of his concluding remarks to his lack of experience, perhaps, of the furniture Utility scheme, which is, after all, something for which the Board of Trade have been responsible for many years.
    When he was talking about the effect on the cost of living, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), the Financial Secretary seemed to give the impression—perhaps not deliberately—that the Government's proposals would have no effect at all, or very little effect, on the cost of furnishing a home. He said that some of the goods at present tax-free would carry tax—he gave no idea how much tax—but that other necessities which at present carry a substantial rate of tax would be tax free or would carry a much lesser rate of tax; and he gave the impression, at least, that perhaps at the end of the day these would all balance and cancel out.
    The Government are asking for some rather wide powers without, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), has said, telling us anything about the way in which the scheme is to be worked out. The only basis on which we can form any impression at all is on our experience of the D scheme for clothing and textiles, on which, of course, the Government have informed us of their intentions, and which we shall be debating later.

    615
    If the Government approach furniture, after discussion with the trade and all the rest, on anything like the same basis on which they have approached clothing and textiles, then, certainly, the cost of furnishing a home will go up very substantially. If they are to follow the median principle, a large proportion of the furniture which is now tax-free will carry a very substantial rate of tax, especially those goods nearest the top level of the Utility scheme.
    6.30 p.m.
    Although it is quite true there are apparent anomalies—there are bound to be in any tax exemptions—about the difference between a cabinet to hold books or a cabinet to hold china—that sounds anomalous, of course—in most of the things which people buy when setting up a home, particularly if they have not very much money, they tend to concentrate on beds, chairs and tables, which they must have, and leave china cabinets perhaps for some years. I have been married for some years and I have certainly not gone in for china cabinets. I have not gone in for china yet because. owing to the regulations made by the President of the Board of Trade and his two predecessors in office, including myself, it has not been possible to get that china.
    Mr. F. J. Erroll: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to get a shoe locker yet?
    Mr. Wilson: I have always had a shoe locker and I have always had shoes. I do not know what the hon. Member means, as I have never said anything to the contrary and I do not know the point of his interruption. If he believes some of the misstatements in the Tory Press, it would take a very long time to put him right.
    Coming back to the point of the Amendment, I was saying that the average family setting up a home, particularly in these growingly difficult times, will concentrate on buying those things which are at present tax free and will leave by far the greater number of things to which the hon. Gentleman referred until they have more money, perhaps for very many years. I think it quite wrong to suggest, if the hon. Gentleman's taxes are anything like those applying to clothing and household textiles, that what
    616
    he is saving on some items can he imposed on others which are subject to tax and others will be tax free. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us more about it, on what level he intends to put the tax and whether he intends the same basis as in clothing and household textiles.
    Mrs. Eirene White: There is one aspect of this problem which I hope the Committee will consider before reaching a conclusion. We are being asked to consent today to measures concerning the furniture industry which shall be taken before next year's Budget. At present, in some parts of the country, including the constituency I represent, a number of young people are either working short time or are out of work. I should like to put that as one of the reasons why we should wait before we agree to any steps which would undoubtedly increase the price of the basic articles of furniture which people of limited means buy when they first marry.
    We are also in a situation in which restrictions are being placed on hire purchase, a matter which I do not believe has been mentioned in this connection this afternoon, but one which is of considerable importance. I am not at the moment going into the pros and cons of restrictions on hire purchase, but I point out that if the price of furniture is increased and, at the same time, restrictions are put on hire purchase arrangements, it will make it exceedingly difficult for young people to set up a home with furniture of their own. It seems a most inappropriate time to be doing anything which would increase the price of obsolutely necessary furniture for a home and it will make it more difficult—I am speaking as one who married while the Utility scheme was in force—for a person to buy good quality furniture.
    Any woman setting up a home wants to be sure that the investment—very often of her savings as well as those of her husband—in household goods will be to the permanent advantage of her family. She does not want to economise on articles such as bedding, chairs, tables, and so on, which she hopes will last for the greater part of her married life. It would be a very great pity if it were made more difficult for people setting up home to buy reasonably good quality

    617
    furniture. After all, this is capital investment for the family and it is always poor economy to buy cheap things if they have to last for many years. I find the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) unanswerable. He says that approximately 90 per cent. of new furniture now made—we are not discussing expensive antiques—is tax free. It is clear that if we are to have anything approaching a D scheme on a median principle we shall very considerably increase the price of articles in common use.
    I do not deny that there are other articles in common use which, perhaps, are not now in the Utility scheme; china cabinets and blanket chests and so on have been mentioned. I am not arguing particularly for those. There may be some anomalies which could be set straight in the existing scheme. It is the necessary articles, beds, chairs, tables, cupboards, and so on, required for young couples setting up home for which I am pleading. I feel that in the present economic circumstances in parts of the country and the restrictions on hire purchase arrangements which are important to the question of furniture it would be most undesirable for the Committee to commit itself to changes which should await next year's Finance Bill.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I have no personal interest in furniture and I do not even think I have a constituency interest in furniture, but I have for a long time been interested, from an outsider's point of view, in furniture design and I wish to say quite bluntly that in my view large parts of this trade stank before the war. They stank from two points of view: first, the furniture was shoddy and, second, the design was rotten.
    Only since the introduction of the Utility scheme has it seemed to make the very marked improvement we have seen in the design of furniture. I say at once that everyone recognises that there have been designers and firms who consistently have sold good, well-designed furniture at reasonable prices. They are still there, but the point about these schemes has been that there has been a general improvement, from both points of view, in the ordinary furniture that the ordinary married couple buy.
    I cannot claim, like my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), to
    618
    have been married so recently that it concerns me, but it concerns my children and I know how much difference it has made to them as it has made to young married couples all over the country by being able, for the first time, to get furniture about the soundness and design of which they could really be proud.
    To the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) I would say that I want to know when the Swede he mentioned last visited the country. I suggest that what happened was that the Swede—they make some remarkably good furniture in Sweden—had formed the impression, from some of the more unfortunate prewar achievements of the furniture trade, that English furniture was only too often deficient both in quality and in design and that he had not had enough time nor experience to get rid of that idea. I hope that on the visit which began in the circumstances we have heard the final stage of the process of conviction was reached and that he came to the conclusion that now at last the English are making, not merely at the top of the scale but right down it, furniture of good quality and good design.
    Mr. Shepherd: I wish to relieve the hon. and learned Member of his illusion; the man to whom I referred bought from this country before the war. I am not denying that there has been an increased interest in design. What I am saying is that if the trade could be freed from the grip of the Utility specifications we might see an even greater improvement in design than has taken place in the last few years.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am not sure that that is so, and here I reply on the Douglas Report. At the end of paragraph 28 it is pointed out:
    "Enforcement of the specifications"—
    I call the Committee's attention to "enforcement"—
    "has … set a minimum standard of quality and has undoubtedly eliminated much of the very low quality cheap furniture which was made before the war."
    That is the kind of stuff I had in mind—and the kind of stuff a little better than that but which was not up to the standard which we get nowadays. As I say, this could be done not only because of the existence of a Utility scheme but because of its enforcement.

    619
    My objection to these Clauses of the Bill is that I regard them as premature. It is quite untrue to say that the approval or disapproval which the House can pronounce on the Treasury's action in the matter will give it an effective control. In these Clauses the Treasury has only the very limited power of description and pricing for the purposes of a D scheme; it has nothing else.
    Negotiations are now going on with both sides of this industry. It seems to me that the Government are tying their hands, as has been pointed out already, by prescribing at this stage, before they know what may really be necessary, the frame into which their plans have to be fitted. It may be that in the course of the negotiations they will find that to deal with this trade properly they will need more than the very limited powers which have been given to the Treasury.
    It is significant that it is the Treasury. This is a matter of description and pricing. I am concerned, as I believe is the trade itself and certainly the ordinary people who have to buy the furniture, not merely about the question of description and price but the question of how we are to enforce on this trade the standards which have recently been enforced under the Utility scheme to maintain decent quality and decent design.
    I have no doubt that somebody can think up some kind of scheme which they regard as sufficient for the purposes which the Utility scheme was intended to serve, but I think that is quite impossible without the enforcement which has applied to the Utility scheme in the past, a monetary enforcement. I am not saying that it was a perfect Utility scheme in that respect. It is clear that it could have been corrected one way and another, but that is an entirely different point.
    The point here is that the Government are dropping the Utility scheme and all that it has meant to the trade itself as well as to the buyer of ordinary furniture, and are putting nothing in its place which links up, whatever the intentions of the Government may prove to be, with the financial provisions of this Bill. It is for that reason that I say these Clauses seem to me to be premature.
    620
    6.45 p.m.
    I should have thought it very foolish indeed to throw over what has been achieved up to this point in this trade. The Government might say that generally they dislike the Utility scheme—I do not agree with that—but in this trade there is an exceptionally strong case for at least having some scheme which can be enforced. Here the Government are throwing away the power of enforcement by separating the financial provisions and the requirements of quality and design.
    It is for that kind of reason that I wonder why the Government have chosen to bring in at this stage this skeleton form of provision. I suspect that it is simply finance. When do we consider finance? That always happens about April Fool's Day; we must do it then. I think that the Government might have gone a little further. They should not throw aside a real success, a real achievement under the previous Government, simply on a matter of timing, simply through trying to fit the matter in with one particular Bill during the year.
    How much wiser it would have been to have accepted this Amendment. No harm can be done by it. Let the Government leave their hands free in the negotiations so as to be able to achieve whatever may be best for the trade by way of amending standards and quality, and so make a proper job of it when the time comes, instead of taking their proposed action now.
    Mr. Albu: I was shocked by the apparently complete misunderstanding of the Financial Secretary about the way the present Utility scheme operates. It is incredible if it is the intention to introduce a D scheme into this industry without any understanding of the extremely important part it plays in the lives of ordinary people at present. The idea that there is any possible D-level that could be introduced which would somehow or other give us much relief as it created extra burden to consumers is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) pointed out, complete nonsense. The main basic articles of furniture are all tax free.
    I ask the Financial Secretary to direct his mind to the question of the margins under the Utility scheme. The retail and distributors' margins generally are controlled to an overall figure of 33⅓ per cent. It would be impossible to have

    621
    such a control under the D scheme. It may well be that under present conditions competition will keep the overall margins down, but we have to have regard to the nature of this trade and to the nature of the retail distribution in this industry.
    A great part is distributed under hire-purchase arrangements. Under the Hire Purchase Act, 1938, retail price and hire-purchase conditions must be shown separately, but if there is no overall control of margins and, as is frequently the case, the retailer does practically no cash trade, there is nothing to prevent him inflating his retail price by including in it a good deal of what should be really his hire-purchase conditions and then showing the regular hire-purchase conditions separately. That seems to me to be a very serious danger that might arise through the abolition of the Utility scheme, with its control of margins, and the introduction in its place of a D scheme.
    Mr. Coldrick: There is a reputable firm producing furniture in my constituency, and when I last visited their premises I found that most of the people there, including the manufacturers themselves, were most eulogistic about the Utility scheme and were afraid that once the controls that were associated with it were removed there would be a debasement of quality.
    I must admit that in subsequent discussions with a number of manufacturers outside my constituency I found that they were all in favour of maintaining the Utility standard but complained of a lack of flexibility. The main argument is that in consequence of certain limitations in force within the Utility scheme they occasionally call the designers together and after they have designed a piece of furniture they consult the foreman and workmen; and then, once they have produced a prototype, they discover that the cost is just outside the Utility range and, consequently, they make certain changes.
    So far as I can gather from them the real remedy at this stage would be the granting of a little flexibility in the present scheme and not its abolition. My experience, particularly in connection with the Co-operative movement, is that in a large number of furniture shops—and, after all, we must have regard to what people
    622
    themselves choose and not what we want to impose on them—the great mass of the people prefer to buy Utility furniture from medium grade upwards.
    What is likely to happen if the Utility scheme is abolished and if we fix the D line, as is generally the case, round about 50 per cent.? We may take it for granted that the great mass of the people will seek to purchase furniture below the D line. That, of course, will mean that an increasing pressure will be placed on the lower quality furniture, and the manufacturers who comply with that demand will have to divert skilled labour and materials to the lower ranges.
    Either we shall have a complete debasement in the quality, which will require some supervision, or we shall find that automatically far less of the higher quality furniture now being produced within the Utility scheme will be produced. It would seem to me that it would pay the Government to look at the scheme as a whole, and if there are certain restrictions to remove them within the Utility scheme, and not proceed to abolish it in accordance with the suggestion in the Douglas Report.
    Mr. Shepherd: I think my hon. Friend could assist if he would say that in fixing the D line it is the intention of the Treasury not to take more tax from the sales of furniture under the new scheme than they have taken under the existing conditions. If he were to do that I am sure that everybody, including hon. Gentlemen opposite, would be very happy.
    Mr. Jay: Before the hon. Gentleman replies may I assist him, since he seems to have so few friends in this debate? May I ask him if this scheme will involve any extra imposition on the consumer?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Let us get this right. I dealt with the argument of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that this was solely a question of an extra imposition on the consumer by pointing out—and I think that, on reflection, he will agree—that it involves an extra imposition in one direction and an extra relief in the other; that there were two forces operating.
    Mr. Jay: Then the hon. Gentleman cannot give us any assurance that there will be no additional tax from any scheme introduced by the Treasury on articles of furniture previously tax free?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That must obviously await the scheme which will be laid.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 291.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Wallace, H. W

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Watkins, T. E,

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Weitzman, D.

    Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    West, D. G.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

    Timmons, J.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Wyatt, W L.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Yates, V. F.

    Tomney, F

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.,

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Usborne, H. C.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Wigg.

    Viant, S P

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Division No. 117.]

    AYES

    [6.56 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Follick, M.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Adams, Richard

    Foot, M. M

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Albu, A. H.

    Forman, J. C.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Mayhew, C P.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

    Mellish, J

    Attlee, Rt. Hon C R

    Gibson, C. W.

    Messer, F

    Awbery, S. S.

    Glanville, James

    Mikardo, Ian

    Ayles, W. H.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Monslow, W.

    Baird, J.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Moody, A. S.

    Balfour, A.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur(Wakefield)

    Morgan, Dr. H B W

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J

    Grey, C. F.

    Morley, R.

    Bartley, P.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Morrison, Rt Hon H. (Lewisham. S.)

    Bence, C. R.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Moyle, A

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Benson, G.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)

    Murray, J. D.

    Beswick, F

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Nally, W.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Bing, G. H C.

    Hannan, W.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hardy, E. A.

    O'Brien, T.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Oldfield, W. H

    Boardman, H.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A.C.

    Hastings, S.

    Orbach, M

    Bowden, H W.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oswald, T.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Padley, W. E.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

    Paget, R. T

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Paling, Rt. Hon W. (Dearne Valley)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Pannell, Charles

    Burke, W. A.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Holman, P.

    Parker, J.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Paton, J.

    Callaghan, L J

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pearson, A

    Carmichael, J.

    Hoy, J. H

    Pearl, T. F.

    Castle, Mrs. B A

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Champion, A. J.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Porter, G.

    Chapman, W D.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)

    Chetwynd, G. R

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Clunie, J.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Coldrick, W.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Collick, P. H.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Rankin, John

    Cook, T. F.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Reeves, J.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Cove, W. G.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Rhodes, H.

    Crosland, C. A R

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Richards, R.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A

    Daines, P.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H

    Jones, T. W (Merioneth)

    Roberta, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Keenan, W.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Davies, E. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Kenyon, C.

    Ross, William

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Royle, C.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    King, Dr. H. M

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Deer, G.

    Kinley, J.

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Short, E. W.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Bromwich)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Simmons, C J (Brierley Hill)

    Edelman, M.

    Lipton, Lt-Col. M.

    Slater, J.

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Logan, D. G.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sorensen, R. W

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    McGovern, J.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    McInnes, J.

    Sparks, J. A

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Steele, T.

    Ewart, R.

    McLeavy, F

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon R. R.

    Field, W. J.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Fienburgh, W.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Finch, H. J.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)

    Swingler, S. T

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Jenkins, R. C, D. (Dulwich)

    Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Jennings, R.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackleg)

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Donner, P. W.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)

    Doughty, C. J. A

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Astor, Hon. W, W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kaberry, D.

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Baldock, Lt-Cmdr. J M

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Baldwin, A E.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Banks, Col C.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Erroll, F. J.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Fell, A.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Beach, Maj Hicks

    Fisher, Nigel

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

    Fort, R.

    Lloyd, Rt, Hon. G. (King's Norton)

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Foster, John

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Bennett, Wiliam (Woodside)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Birch, Nigel

    Gage, C. H.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Black, C. W.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)

    Boothby, R. J. G

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Bossom, A. C.

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    McAdden, S. J.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Godber, J. B.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I of Wight)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gower, H. R.

    Mackeson, Brig. H R

    Braine, B. R.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

    Grimond, J.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P G. T

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Bullock, Cap M.

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Marmingham-Buller, Sir R. E

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Marples, A. E.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hay, John

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Butler, Rt. Han. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Maude, Angus

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maudling, R.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr S. L C

    Channon, H.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Mellor, Sir John

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Cole, Norman

    Holland-Martin, C. J

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Conant, Maj R. J. E.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hope, Lord John

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Horobin, I. M.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth. E.)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr N. J

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Chthbert, W. N.

    Hurd, A. R

    Odey, G. W

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W D.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Tilney, John

    Orr-Ewing Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

    Scott-Miller, Comdr. R

    Turner, H F. L.

    Osborne, C.

    Shepherd, William

    Turton, R. H.

    Partridge, E.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Vane, W. M. F

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J K

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Vosper, D. F.

    Peyton, J. W. W

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M

    Snadden, W. McN

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Speir, R. M.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Watkinson, H. A

    Profumo, J. D.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Raikes, H. V

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Wellwood, W.

    Rayner, Brig. R

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Redmayne, E.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Storey, S.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Studholme, H. G

    Wills, G.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Summers, G S

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    York, C.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Russell, R. S.

    Teeling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Mr. Drewe and Mr. Heath.

    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 8, line 22, to leave out subsection (2).
    It would be convenient, at the same time, to consider the Amendment in line 35, at the end, to insert "paragraph 1 of." These are simply paving Amendments for the Government new Clause, on page 884 of the Order Paper, dealing with the reduction of Purchase Tax on fur-trimmed garments.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Before the Committee accept this Amendment, I hope that the Financial Secretary will say a little more about it. It appears to me to be highly inconvenient. I understand that the object of omitting this important subsection (2) is to enable the Chancellor to re-introduce the substance of it in a modified and extended form as a new Clause. That is all very well, but it is another illustration of the muddle in which the Government are involved with this Bill.
    A number of my hon. Friends and myself were anxious to put down Amendments to subsection (2) and also to the Third Schedule, which contains a number of consequential provisions which derive from this subsection. I understood that there was some suggestion that after we had considered the three Clauses dealing with Purchase Tax the Chancellor would invite the Committee to deal with the Schedules which relate to Purchase Tax.
    628
    It will be seen that there is no proposal to delete subsection (3) of this Clause which starts with the word, "Accordingly." The Third Schedule, as drafted, contains a series of changes which depend upon the Committee accepting the principles laid down in subsection (1) and subsection (2). Can the Financial Secretary tell us whether we are to postpone consideration of the Third Schedule until we come to the Chancellor's new Clause which will be introduced later in substitution for subsection (2)? Shall we be able when we come to the Third Schedule to deal with the detailed alterations on the assumption that the Committee will accept the principle of the new Clause which will be moved later by the Chancellor?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry if the Amendment is inconvenient to the hon. Member or to the Committee. It is proposed, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, to take out the provisions of subsection (2) which relate to certain concessions with respect to fur trimmings and to put them back as a separate Clause. It was thought that certain additional definitions of the word "trimming," necessary to prevent abuse, so inflated the subsection in length as to justify it being made into a separate Clause. That was the intention, and no more.
    The point raised by the hon. Gentleman about the relationship of this new

    629
    Clause to the Third Schedule is a new one. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will expect me at this stage to be able to give him an answer. My right hon. Friend will look at the matter, because it is his object to conduct the Committee stage of this Bill with the minimum of inconvenience to the Committee.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and also for the assurance that the Chancellor will consider it. May I, therefore, suggest that perhaps the course which would be of maximum convenience to the Committee would be that the new Clause which is to be introduced in substitution for subsection (2) of Clause 7 should be considered at an early stage, so that we might consider it in relation to the Schedule, which flows from it?
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) for raising this point. It is quite clear that, if we cannot discuss the new Clause which replaces subsection (2) until after the Third Schedule has been considered, we might be in a very difficult position. Perhaps I might follow up my hon. Friend's suggestion by offering to the Chancellor, if it is found to be in order, the proposal that we should, in fact, consider the new Clause before we take the Third Schedule; that is to say, after Clause 9. If that could be done, I think it would solve the difficulty which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The reason why my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary did not give a more definite answer was that, in my experience, in a Bill already complicated with many Schedules, one could not really give an answer without profound study and one might mislead the Committee. I will undertake to consider this proposal, in order that we are not upset by having the device of moving the new Clause and bringing up the Fourth Schedule and then taking the Third Schedule in the wrong place, and I will give an answer as soon as I can.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 35, at end, insert "paragraph 1 of."—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]
    630
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. H. Wilson: This Clause is one of the most important in the whole Bill, and it is right that, before we go on to another we should have some discussion upon it, because this is the Clause that raises the whole question of a new principle-the imposition of the Purchase Tax on Utility goods, and, of course, the D scheme.
    Tonight, as it is the Finance Bill which we are considering, we are concerned purely with the imposition of the Purchase Tax on Utility goods, just as, on certain Prayers which we on this side of the Committee tabled a week ago, we were concerned then with the Utility scheme only and not with the tax on the Utility scheme. The Committee will recall that, a few days ago, we had a far-reaching but short debate on the question of Purchase Tax in relation to the textile and clothing industries on a Motion which stood in the names of some of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself.
    It may be that hon. Members of the Committee will be wondering why we have not brought up that Motion again tonight in the form of an Amendment to the Finance Bill. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) would once more have been greatly embarrassed if an Amendment had been put down on the same lines as the Motion which was debated on 29th April.
    The reason why we did not do so was, quite simply, that to have put it down in anything like that form, we were advised, would have been out of order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and others of my hon. Friends and myself have, in fact, tabled an Amendment which would have had the effect of exempting from the operation of the D scheme, as regards the imposition of taxation, those Utility goods which, up to this time, or, at least, up to the Chancellor's Budget, had not carried Purchase Tax. In fact, we have not sought to move that Amendment tonight because we felt—and I understand that this view was 'shared, at least, by some hon. Members opposite—that it would be more for the convenience of the Committee to have a wider debate on the Motion "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the

    631
    Bill," rather than limit ourselves to that particular Amendment.
    On the 29th of April, in a debate of some three hours, we put to the Government a strong and, in my view, almost unanswerable case for the removal of the Purchase Tax on textiles and clothing, and we have not really had an answer, because, certainly, the speech of the Financial Secretary on that occasion was not an answer to the point raised by my hon. Friends and myself on the position of the textile trade at the present time.
    We did have, however, both from the Financial Secretary and earlier from the Chancellor himself, some indication that something was going to be done about the Purchase Tax and the Utility scheme. In the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, the Chancellor said:
    "… if uncertainty continues about what policy is or may be, that will be the worst possible thing for the cotton trade or the woollen trade."
    Then, the Chancellor proceeded to create more uncertainty by saying that he was not absolutely wedded or committed to the D level, and that he would have a look at it during the Committee stage of this Bill. He said:
    "… when we come to the Committee stage it will be up to hon. Members to put down their Amendments, as I am sure they will—and there are ample opportunities for them."
    I think my hon. Friends and myself have put down something like 100 well thought out and constructive Amendments to the Fourth Schedule, and I hope that the Chancellor is not disappointed at the result of our energies. Equally, I trust that we shall not be disappointed at the response which he makes to these Amendments.
    7.15 p.m.
    But the right hon. Gentleman went much further. He said:
    "I shall spend most of my time between now and then mastering the intricacies and details of the various fabrics and articles and the problems that arise. We shall then have to apply our minds to making the Bill a better thing and life a worthier thing again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 2447-49.]
    In those concluding words, I think the Chancellor was taking the Finance Bill a bit wide, but I trust that he has spent a great deal of his time in the last month mastering the intricacies and details of
    632
    fabrics and articles, and I hope that we shall get the benefit of his work in what he is going to tell us tonight.
    We were also promised by the Financial Secretary:
    "We shall give during the debate on the Finance Bill … the fullest and most careful consideration to the points that are put. … But the undertaking I have given, of careful consideration of proposals as they come forward during the debate, indicates that our minds are open on this question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 1366.]
    So we must assume that the mind of the Government is open on this question, which is raised particularly in Clause 7 (1).
    We have debated on more than one occasion the effect of Clause 7, or of the proposals enshrined in Clause 7, on the Lancashire cotton industry, the Yorkshire woollen industry and the rest of the textile and clothing industries of this country. Tonight, I want more to stress the position of the consumer as affected by these proposals in Clause 7. We have considered the position of the consumer from the point of view of providing protection against shoddy goods and against the production of inferior quality, because we recognised the dangers to which consumers will be subject as a result of the disappearance of the Utility scheme.
    Tonight, at any rate, I want to seek to stress more particularly the effect on the cost of living and on consumers of inserting Purchase Tax on a whole range of goods which previously were tax free. I know that that is not the only important consideration about Clause 7. Indeed, the effect of Clause 7 on the textile and clothing industries and on employment in the textile trade is particularly important to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
    What does the Clause do? In fact, it imposes Purchase Tax on something like half the Utility clothing and textile goods which were previously tax free. It of course raises the cost of living of those sections of the community—and this really covers the majority of the community—which previously bought Utility clothing and Utility household textiles.
    Anyone who takes the trouble to go to shops which sell to the ordinary people of this country—I am not talking about the luxury shops—will find that a large proportion of their trade will be

    633
    affected by Clause 7. For instance, one large Co-operative society in the South which serves a working-class and lower middle-class group of customers estimates that something like 30 per cent. of their normal sale of men's wear and 40 per cent. of their normal sale of women's wear will, as a result of this proposal, pay tax.
    I have heard of other Co-operative societies in different parts of the country where 65 per cent. of men's wear which was previously tax free is now going to come into the tax paying group, and where 50 per cent. of the outfitting and 100 per cent. of all of the bespoke tailoring of these societies will now pay the tax. I have heard of others in South Wales where 80 per cent. of their whole previous tax-free trade in men's wear and 75 per cent. of their previous tax-free trade in women's wear is now going to pay tax.
    I do not propose to go into details of the individual effects of this Clause, because that is a matter which it would be more appropriate to raise, as we hope to do, on the Fourth Schedule, and we are assuming from the various promises made by the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary that we shall be permitted a very full and searching examination of the proposals in that Schedule. It is quite clear that there are very many anomalies, and that these are inevitable as a result of having such a Clause as this. But it is not merely a question of anomalies. As I have said, there is also the very serious effect on the cost of living.
    I have been looking at the figures of trade of a typical Co-operative society, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that I should have got exactly the same result had I been looking at the figures of a privately owned shop dealing with the same kind of trade. If we compare the D level proposed by the Chancellor with the cost of the cheapest lines previously stocked, we see what a tremendous proportion of their normal trade will now carry tax.
    If we take casements and brocades, we find that the D level is 5s. 4d. and the cheapest line stocked by this Society is 6s. Down quilts: the D level is £2 10s. and the cheapest line stocked £5 11s. 6d. Wool gloves: the D level is 3s. and the cheapest line stocked is 5s. Men's vests of Class A material: 14s. is the D level
    634
    proposed by the Chancellor and £1 4s. is the charge previously made. Class B material: the cheapest is 4s., and 8s. is the cost of the cheapest in stock. Similar figures could be given for other goods.
    I am told that as a result of this Clause, to take one very broad example, all hair filled mattresses will now bear tax whereas before many were tax free. Up to now down quilts have been tax free, but, unless the Chancellor is going to make some fundamental proposals about changing the D level, only those quilts composed of inferior fillings are going to be tax free from now on.
    A few minutes ago we were debating the question of the D scheme as it relates to furniture, and we now have to consider that as a result of the D proposals for household furnishings, quite apart from the furniture trade, the cost to young, newly married couples in setting up a home is going to be very greatly increased as a result of the Budget and the Chancellor's proposals unless he is going to come forward tonight with some message of hope for them, as we all trust he is.
    To take one or two examples. The contrast between the present and the new cost of important clothing and household furnishing items when the Chancellor has added Purchase Tax will be as follows: casement curtains which now cost 15s 2d.—these are typically moderately priced articles—will be 18s. 11d., the difference going to the Chancellor in the form of tax. Men's woollen vests at £1 11s. go up to £1 14s. 4d., and men's cotton vests go up from 10s. 4d. to 11s. 8d.
    These are substantial and serious differences in the cost of living, and they are the direct result of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget. Coming back to down quilts, they are going up from £7 8s. 8d. to £9 9s. 8d. The "Manchester Guardian" in a leading article on 4th April, some parts of which I quoted during our recent brief debate on the Purchase Tax in relation to the textile trade, commented that the D scheme has had some fantastic effects on the textile industry and that it has hit the hosiery trade badly. It says:
    "It has made most curtain and furnishing fabrics of decent quality prohibitive for the ordinary purse."
    Is that what the Chancellor really set out to do in this Budget? If so, it accords very oddly with all the promises made

    635
    last October by right hon. Gentlemen opposite about the cost of living and with those great posters which were disfiguring the walls with the picture of a purse with a hole in it which the Tory Party promised to mend, and bearing such slogans as, "The Conservatives will fight the rising cost of living." The "Manchester Guardian" said that the result of the Chancellor's first Budget—and we all hope it will be his last—was to make most curtain and furnishing fabrics prohibitive for the ordinary purse.
    The article then goes on to point out:
    "The tax free level has been put at 4s. a yard for all cotton and rayon fabrics, which means that all the better fabrics bear a heavy tax."
    It reminds its readers that the tax on piece goods still remains in the proposals at 66⅔ per cent., and points out quite rightly that this was a tax put on during the war to discourage consumption. It is still operating under this new D scheme at a time when there is extremely heavy unemployment in Lancashire.
    This D scheme which is imposed under Clause 7 is, and is bound to be as worked out by the Chancellor, a redistributive tax which means that the lower income groups have to pay more for goods in order that to some extent the higher income groups can get some relief. That is the inevitable result of the D scheme.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman is importing a political argument into his speech. Does not he agree that while the responsibility must rest on the Government of the day, this was an honourable attempt to implement the findings of a committee appointed by my predecessor of a different political party from my own and an honourable attempt to bring in a scheme thought at the time to be helpful?
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Wilson: I was going to come to the question of our international obligations and the undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross), which everyone on this side of the Committee is determined must be carried out. I quite agree with that, but I hope I can satisfy the Chancellor that it is possible to do that without at the same time redistributing income in this country on the whole in favour of the rich at the expense of the poor.
    636
    I do not think some hon. Members opposite realise the seriousness of this redistribution. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), speaking about furniture, sounded as if he would be quite satisfied if the Financial Secretary gave an undertaking that when the Government finally produce their D scheme proposals there would be no more taxation taken from the furniture trade as a whole than is taken at the present time. I see that he confirms that himself.
    If the result of a scheme of that kind is to make lower priced furniture dearer and some of the higher priced furniture, and indeed luxury furniture, cheaper, it is not equity at all. It may satisfy hon. Members opposite, but it is a redistribution measure hitting the poor and helping the rich. That is the result of Clause 7 as it affects clothing and textiles. I say nothing about furniture, because a great deal has been said about that on previous Amendments.
    We all agree, of course, that we must honour our international obligations about non-discrimination in the matter of internal taxes on the one hand and taxes on imported goods on the other; but that does not mean the Chancellor has to tax the bulk of our good quality Utility goods. When the Douglas Report was first published and the Chancellor referred to it in his Budget speech on 11th March, I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South who got up next day and said that we accepted the need to honour our international obligations and we accepted in some form the D scheme. I said the same thing the following day, but both of us said that, on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, we should press for a far higher D level in order to remove the impact of Purchase Tax from the Utility goods which have so far been tax free.
    I am sure that on reflection the Chancellor will agree it will be possible to honour our international obligations in full and at the same time exempt all, or nearly all, Utility goods which so far have been tax free. If the Chancellor is going to introduce a D scheme there are bound to be anomalies; and, of course, what might have been appropriate a year ago at the time of the establishment of the Douglas Committee can be and is completely inappropriate in the present condition of the textile industries of

    637
    Yorkshire, Lancashire, Scotland and other areas and in the present condition of the clothing trade
    In fact, the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised—and I still hope he will tell us he accepts our view—to sweep away the whole of this Purchase Tax from textiles and clothing if only in the interest of the textile industries themselves. We have asked him to do that before. If he is not going to say that, I trust he will say that he will raise the D levels to so high a figure that practically no goods which have been tax free under the Utility scheme will be paying tax under the D scheme.
    I am sure some of my hon. Friends will want to develop particularly the relevance of Clause 7 to the textile industries and their great problems at the present time. But I would rest my argument on Clause 7 on this alone—without mentioning other points made before—that the effect of Clause 7 is to impose an intolerable burden on the housewives and consumers in this country and that the Government and the Committee should not proceed with a Clause which imposes such a burden and removes from the housewife the protection which the Utility scheme has given her for so many years.
    Mr. Ralph Assheton: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) referred to a debate which took place some days ago when a Motion was carried asking the Government to remove, reduce or amend the Purchase Tax on textiles. This Clause goes wider than the subject of textiles. On that occasion I developed some reasons why I thought a tax on textiles ought to be removed. I want to go rather further on this occasion and try and persuade the Chancellor that the Purchase Tax as a whole, as now imposed, is a had tax and ought to be removed.
    One has great sympathy, of course, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has to raise the revenue. I know perfectly well that he receives something like £1 million every day from Purchase Tax—something like £360 million a year—and therefore it is a very important element in his Budget. But I want to draw the attention of the Committee once again to the size of the Budget and to point out that the total receipts budgeted
    638
    for from taxes this year is at the alarming figure of £4,500 million.
    That is to say, the Chancellor is budgeting for the very largest revenue any Chancellor has ever budgeted for in peace or war in this country. I suggest to the Committee that the total amount of taxes which are being levied by the Exchequer are grossly excessive and greater than the community can bear.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the immense defence burden on the community?
    Hon. Members: And National Debt.
    Mr. Assheton: I am fully aware of the defence burden and the National Debt burden. They amount to almost exactly £2,000 million, and the rest of the Budget, which is chiefly made up of the Civil Estimates, amounts to between £2,000 million and £2,500 million. I know the burden very well. I am only pointing out that this is the highest level taxation has ever reached in this country in peace or war. I have suggested before, and I suggest now, that that level of taxation must be reduced. It can only be reduced by reducing expenditure, a subject which, of course, I shall not be able to pursue on this occasion.
    I want to point out why I think the Purchase Tax is a bad tax and, if I may, I want to call in aid a most interesting statement published yesterday by the Federation of British Industries and the comments made on that statement by "The Times" newspaper in the interesting article they had on the subject. I was interested to note that the Federation of British Industries, speaking for industry, acknowledge the value of the Douglas Committee Report. I should like to be one of those who pay tribute to Sir William Douglas for the work he did within a very narrow permitted field.
    While the Federation of British Industries acknowledged the value of the Report, at the same time they did not favour the continuance of the Purchase Tax in its present form. They go on to point out the various objections to it. They point out that this tax was originally imposed for two reasons—to check consumption on the one hand and to raise revenue on the other. Of course, the more it succeeds in checking consumption the more it fails in raising revenue. Surely

    639
    we have reached a stage when the Chancellor is only regarding this tax, at any rate as far as textiles are concerned, from the point of view of raising revenue. We can, I hope, ignore any possibility of using this tax for restricting consumption, and so I think I can devote my argument to the revenue aspect.
    Is this a good method of raising money? I do not think it is. It is very damaging to the export trade because, as the F.B.I. pointed out, overseas markets which have alternative sources of supply refuse to submit to the influences imposed by the tax on the home market, as substantially the same sources of production provide for both markets. That is quite clear. If we are producing for the export market we want to have an overspill into the home market, and we manufacture goods which we hope to sell in both markets. We in England have got to sell our goods overseas by quality—
    Sir W. Darling: And in Scotland.
    Mr. Assheton: And I am sure in Scotland, too. Quality is what we depend on. There was a time, before the first war, when we were selling 7,000 million yards of cotton cloth all over the world, when quantity was what mattered, but now when every country in the world is producing its own goods of the cheaper kinds what we depend upon is quality. A tax which is levied at varying levels is absolutely inimical to quality. It must be so.
    The argument which some hon. Members opposite have been using about the dangers of a tax which raises the price of goods to people in this country is a point which must be considered, but I should like hon. Members opposite, and particularly the right hon. Member for Huyton, to bear in mind that we should look after the quality goods which are manufactured in this country and that therefore a high level of tax on quality goods is wrong.
    It may be easy for hon. Members opposite to suggest that because goods are of a high quality they should be taxed heavily, but that is most damaging to the workers of this country who are producing those goods, and in their interests we ought to consider whether or not that is a sound argument. We must remember that if quality goods which are produced
    640
    in this country are heavily taxed, we shall lose our markets in the world and there will then be no reason to produce those goods.
    I hope the Chancellor will be good enough to consider this point. If we have to raise revenue by taxes on consumption goods, I would rather see a much lower level of tax on a much wider sphere of goods. I should have thought that would be a wiser way of raising revenue, and it would be more advantageous to the trade of the country and likely to create more employment, particularly in Lancashire. one of whose divisions I have the honour to represent.
    One point that I do not want to overlook is the fact that the uncertainty attached to Purchase Tax in its present form is most damaging to the markets. Every year we have this difficulty, and I should like to quote from a letter on this point. My correspondent, who is very knowledgeable, referring to the cotton trade, says:
    "The industry has to plan its production six to nine months ahead of requirements. Yarn ordered in June may not become finished cloth for nine months or become a garment in the hands of the retailer for 12 months. The risks of a change in tax rate cannot be hedged or guarded against like a risk of a fall in the commodity, and from June onwards manufacturers, converters, wholesalers, makers-up and retailers are successively in a state of growing uncertainty, tending to keep their commitments as low as possible in case Budget changes force losses upon them. The Budget, in fact, comes at the very worst time when Spring and Summer goods should be moving forward in volume, and the intricacies of the D scheme are bound to make annual changes necessary, and the recurring uncertainty will do serious injury to an industry endeavouring to provide uniform employment throughout the year."
    7.45 p.m.
    Those two points of damage to quality production and uncertainty are important. Those are two of the most important criticisms of the Purchase Tax that can be made. I hope that the Chancellor will undertake seriously to examine the whole question of the Purchase Tax. I am not foolish enough to think that he can jettison the whole Purchase Tax in this Budget when he is budgeting for £360 million. All I pressed for the other night as an instalment was that he should remove the Purchase Tax on textiles, and he has indicated so far that he does not feel able to do it on account of the cost. But I want him to look ahead and see

    641
    whether before next year he can remove the Purchase Tax altogether. If revenue is to be raised by some tax at this time, he should do it by means of a tax of a totally different character at a low, flat rate on a wide range of goods.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: I am rather confused, and I think that the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), is also confused. I fear, too, that the housewives are confused. We ought to draw a very clear distinction between Purchase Tax as the housewife knows it, and this D tax which is about to be imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, known as "the honest Chancellor," who, at Dunmow, on 1st October, assured the electorate that he would attack vigorously the cost of living.
    The D tax will now be spread more equally among all members of the community. It is working in the very opposite direction to that of the Purchase Tax. We on this side of the Committee time and again removed Purchase Tax from almost all articles in daily use. If we take, for example, the range of cotton goods, sheets and pillow slips, it was only when a housewife bought very fine linen sheets at about six guineas a pair upwards that she paid tax. It was only when she bought a pair of hand embroidered pillow cases at about a guinea upwards that she paid tax.
    Under "the honest Chancellor's" new D scheme she is going to pay tax on the humble pillow slip costing 5s. 11d.; I take 4s. as the wholesale price of the class "C" article, 6s. 6d. being the wholesale price of the class "A" article. She is to pay tax on gloves costing as little as 3s. a pair. The worker is to pay tax on suitings and overcoats. The housewife is to pay tax on all underwear.
    When I go through the Fourth Schedule I find that everything is subject to tax unless it is the veriest of shoddy garments. Men's shirts which cost 17s. 6d. wholesale will be subject to tax. Even ankle socks at 2s. per pair will be subject to tax. It is a devastating attempt to increase the entire cost of living by taxing every article bought by ordinary working class people in their homes—table napery, sheets, blankets, pillowslips and even humble underwear such as a lady's slip as low as 8s. 4d.Every woman
    642
    knows that that is merely a rayon garment. From that price upwards it will bear a tax. Even a pair of corsets at £1 will bear a tax.
    If housewives could see this Schedule they would be appalled at what confronted them. Doubtless the news will not burst on them until after all the municipal and county council elections are over. I should like to quote from a newspaper which is not even a Liberal one—it is definitely Tory—the "Glasgow Herald." [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Yes, they are very proud of it. I may say that I have some respect for newspapers which definitely let it be known which party they support. When one reads the "Glasgow Herald" one knows just what to expect, and I much prefer that to the masquerading with which we are so well acquainted, whereby newspapers adopt the pose that their duty is to speak for the good of everyone. That newspaper says:
    "Consignments of clothing subject to the new D scheme of pricing recommended by the Douglas Committee have been received in Glasgow. The general effect of the new rates is that the high grade non-utility garments will cost less and the utility wear will cost more."
    We are to benefit the same people as were benefited by the Chancellor in his Income Tax proposals. The £2,000 a year and upwards people are to benefit because the higher-costed garment will be subject to a reduction in tax, and the lower-costed garment will have an increased tax.
    Sir William Darling indicated dissent
    Mrs. Mann: The hon. Member shakes his head. If we look at HANSARD for 29th January we find that the hon. Member was urging a sales tax on all goods at all levels because the Chamber of Commerce supported it.
    Sir W. Darling: Will the hon. Lady indicate some of these high priced goods which have suffered a reduction of Purchase Tax?
    Mrs. Mann: I shall be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman examples for the next half hour if he would like them. He seems to have a nice taste in ties. I can hardly see what he is wearing below his tie. Nevertheless, I must assume that he

    643
    is interested in men's shirts. As an example of the effect on prices, a well-known make of non-Utility shirt costing 56s. 3d. will be reduced to 49s. 6d. under our honest Chancellor's new D scheme, and a top grade Utility shirt costing 37s. 9d. will cost 44s. 2d.
    In another grade, a Utility shirt at 29s. 7d. will be increased to 35s. 5d. and a shirt at 21s. 6d. will also bear increased tax. Let us not confuse this with Purchase Tax. Would the hon. Gentleman like me to quote gent's suits and the increase which applies to them? Under the old tax a suit costing £20 bore a tax of 25 per cent., bringing the cost to £25; but now the suit will cost £25 less £2 8s. 8d.
    "For whosoeer hath, to him shall be given, … but whosover hath not from him shall be taken away even that he hath."
    according to the Chancellor's D scheme.
    Sir W. Darling: Even his shirt.
    Mrs. Mann: I think the correct word for this is "inexcusable" In going through the Douglas Committee's Report one did feel that there was a strong argument for the reduction of the gap between the top Utility grade and the non-Utility grade. The reason advanced by that Committee was the difficulty of manufacturing and preserving the balance between the necessary home market and the export market, but surely everything has altered since they made their report.
    Do hon. Members remember the posters: "Time for a change"? Well, there has been a change. "Get them out"—and they have gone out. There have been changes elsewhere. One would have thought that Australia, with its Tory Government—the friends, associates, close pals, shall I say, of hon. Members opposite—would have helped them a little. Instead of helping them it has been a case of dog eat dog. I regret that that analogy is not exactly what I mean; but at any rate Australia has cut her imports.
    Everything has changed since the Douglas Committee were asked to bridge that gap. We are now faced with the loss of the Australian market. Those hon. Members representing Lancashire constituencies will speak of the difficulties they are experiencing. We must go after the home market. Now we are to make confusion worse confounded and double the number of unemployed by
    644
    depriving even the home market of its sales, by introducing the D tax.
    I have the greatest pleasure in speaking against this Clause, just as I have in explaining to housewives how what they and their husbands wear, even down to the most shoddy material at 4s. a yard, has to bear tax. Even children's clothes are affected, though we are told, at the beginning of Clause 7, that garments will,
    "if a kind suitable for young children's wear, be exempt from purchase tax;"
    We all know that children wear a coat set, which means a coat and a bonnet; but the bonnet, the little hat, if over 8s. will bear tax, so that even the children are being affected by the D tax.
    I think it is too late to ask hon. Members opposite to change their minds. The die is cast, the writing is on the wall. Today will set the seal on the mistake which the electors made some months ago. I think hon. Members opposite see that they are racing down the hill, like certain animals referred to in the New Testament, to their own destruction. I ask them, in the interests of the housewives, to throw out the Clause.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir W. Darling: As one of the New Testament animals who is rushing speedily to destruction, may I say that I am sure the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) will welcome, at any rate, a speech from me before I perish utterly in the abyss. I am sure she would not expect me to plunge to utter destruction without a protesting word. The hon. Lady and her right hon. Friends are not attacking the Clause; in fact, they are attacking the Douglas Report.
    Mrs. Mann: Why implement it?
    Sir W. Darling: I know that the Report has been studied with care, but I should like to draw the attention of the Committee, and in particular that of the hon. Lady, to Part IV of the Report, which says:
    "We conclude that only a D scheme comes within all the requirements of the terms of reference laid down by your predecessor."
    I repeat that—"by your predecessor," being the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that if the D scheme does not meet with the wishes of the public generally—

    645
    and I agree that it does not—the responsibility must be laid upon the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who laid down the terms of reference.
    Miss Alice Bacon rose?
    Sir W. Darling: If the Report is wrong, I shall be only too glad to have it contradicted, but I would repeat what the Report concludes—
    "… that only a D scheme comes within all the requirements of the terms of reference laid down by your predecessor."
    Miss Bacon: I might remind the hon. Gentleman that the level of the D scheme was not fixed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), but by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Sir W. Darling: May I repeat my quotation? It says:
    "the terms of reference laid down by your predecessor."
    The phrase "your predecessor" cannot mean other than the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the hon. Lady will agree that that is so.
    Mrs. Mann: May I put this question to the hon. Gentleman? Does he assume that every Government accepts the findings of a Commission? As your Government intend to set up a Royal Commission on the subject of Scottish Home Rule, will you tell us if you intend to accept the Report?
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Frank Bowles): I think that both the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and the than. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), are both addressing one another as if they were in the Chair.
    Sir W. Darling: I am sure you will agree, Mr. Bowles, that the compelling character of the hon. Lady is such that it makes my error less inexcusable than hers. I will continue in safety by quoting the Report. This is why the attack is not upon my right hon. Friend but upon the D scheme. The Report says:
    "We are conscious that a D scheme such as we have propounded is not an ideal solution of the many problems confronting British trade today. It perhaps offers least assistance to the production of high quality goods."
    646
    If the hon. Lady does not like this, she should remember that I am only quoting the Report. It is not for me to defend the scheme, because, like the hon. Lady, I disagree with it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), I share the view that the Government have inherited the Purchase Tax from the late Government, have inherited a great deal along with it and are compelled, in seeking their revenue, to continue the Purchase Tax. The Government have decided to do that under the D scheme, and I think they are mistaken to do so, but I intend to support them in the Division Lobby tonight, because, as I say, they have inherited the tax and there is no time to make a change.
    I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is a most important part of the Bill and that we are adopting a new principle of taxation on Utility goods. I support that principle this year but I make it clear—and I think many hon. Members would be in agreement—that we shall get the best advice we can, and also learn from our experience, in order to put a better scheme into operation for the next Budget. It must be borne in mind that we have to get the revenue, and we aim to get it in the fairest way.
    There is universal objection to this method of getting it. Perhaps I may quote from a report of one of the large middle-class, or lower middle-class distributive concerns, who set out at some length their view that the D scheme is entirely unsatisfactory to a business doing many millions of pounds worth of trade a year. This report says:
    "The abolition of the Utility scheme and of a very considerable measure of price control are steps in the right direction, but there are many points in the Douglas Report upon which these changes have been based which are not in the interest either of the public or of the retail trade A large quantity of goods which used to be known as the ' top end of Utility' will now be subject to Purchase Tax, and furthermore it is clear from the notice issued by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that it is their intention to apply their notorious system of uplift to the cost of this same merchandise."
    The hon. Lady protests against the tax in the name of the housewives. If she will have me, tie and all, she has an ally as passionate and as anxious as she is to see a better and fairer system of taxation.
    Mr. Desmond Donnelly(Pembroke): But only next year.
    Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is aware that this taxation is urgently necessary to meet the crisis and the difficulties with which we were faced when we took over the Government. The money has to be found this year in such a measure as this country has never found it before, even in time of war.
    Mr. Donnelly: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May we presume, then, that he will give a firm guarantee that if conditions are exactly the same next year he will join us in the Division Lobby?
    Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) must not be too ready to make assumptions on my behalf. If he keeps his own conscience clear in this matter—and I notice that he has been straying in the Division Lobbies recently —he will have done enough.
    Mr. Dryden Brook: Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, that he intends to seek a revision of the tax next year?
    Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman heard me correctly.
    Mr. Brook: If so, as a businessman will he address himself to this question? Is not one of the great troubles of the present situation the uncertainty in which the businessmen are placed? Is that uncertainty to be continued for 12 months? As a businessman, will he continue to carry stocks in the certain knowledge that at the end of 12 months he will lose the tax he has paid?
    Sir W. Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one of the greatest evils which British business has to face is uncertainty, but for the last six years business has been accustomed to uncertainty. We have lived in conditions when we knew not, that day or hour, whether we should embark on another war, or lose another oilfield, or whether businesses which had long been managed successfully would be taken over by the State. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook) is interested in giving confidence and comfort to those engaged in industry, but in protesting against this tax he speaks unfortunately as a member and ardent supporter of a party who have given uncertainty to the whole of the business community for the last six years. I am
    648
    entirely with him on one thing, however, and I hope my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the whole Treasury Bench will agree, too, this is not a satisfactory tax.
    To imply that shopkeepers, who are ill qualified for any other business, and who certainly are not qualified as tax collectors —to imply that shopkeepers should collect £1 million a day is not a satisfactory method of taxing the people. I am opposed to it, as I am opposed to the method by which the same shopkeepers and merchants have to keep books for the collection of Income Tax under P.A.Y.E. Both these things are to me anathema. Cannot the hon. Gentleman contain himself? No? Then I will give way.
    Mr. Brook: The hon. Gentleman has said that business has had to face in the last six years a tremendous number of uncertainties. As a businessman along with myself, will he answer me this question? Have there been any six years in the history of British industry when every industry in our country has had greater certainty of profit than industry has had in the last six years?
    Sir W. Darling: I am speaking for myself—and I am not suggesting that I am as good a businessman as the hon. Gentleman is, for that would be too much flattery for the hon. Gentleman, and one must not flatter—but these last six years have been more uncertain, more uneasy, than any year previous in the 40 years in which I have been engaged in business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am among those businessmen who, when they found that business was fairly good under a Socialist Government, knew that that was a phenomenon fraught with danger. I did not agree that everything in the garden was lovely, even though the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. D. Brook) wore a rose in his buttonhole. I never believed that Socialism was other than a fraud. I believed that it was all too good to be true, and too good to last. However, let me return to my theme. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt I will give way.
    Mr. H. Wilson: In support of the thesis he has just been maintaining will the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has been saying with the figures of bankruptcies in the last six years, which have been fewer than was usual?
    The Temporary Chairman: I think that this debate is going much too wide of the Question that the Clause stand part.
    Sir W. Darling: I am glad to be protected by you, Mr. Bowles, but the right hon. Gentleman is scoring an easy point, because I cannot give him the figures. They are extremely small, but they are rising rapidly, and have been rising rapidly for the last three years.
    I want to return to Clause 7, and say that my right hon. Friend is right to apply the terms of the D scheme, even with its many hardships, its many anomalies. As to that, I could not agree more readily with the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. I agree that it is full of hardships, full of anomalies. I agree that it is full of trouble and detail, that it raises great difficulties for those engaged in the different businesses and trades. I agree with all that. But, after all, the D scheme is before the Committee, and it is that scheme which this Government must act upon, as any other Government sitting here this year would have had to act upon it.
    That, however, does not prevent me from venturing to say that there are alternatives and better schemes, as the one referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) for a small universal tax on turnover on all the commodities in which we do business in this country. On all commodities—not women's clothing, not men's clothing, not furniture alone—but on all of the commodities: a small tax of 1 per cent. I am informed that it would give us £3,500 million a year. It would apply at every level, irrespective of price, covering all transactions; and the collection of that tax—I will not go into it at any length—but the collection of that tax would not be by the shopkeepers or the merchants or the manufacturers, but through the banks, as we handled the clothing coupons during the war.
    It is true that the Government are pushing forward a tax which they recognise —better than the Opposition do—is an inconvenient one and a difficult one, and one which is full of anomalies; but what hon. Members opposite ought to have in mind is that we inherited not only Purchase Tax from them but a muddle of incalculable character, and it is a muddle
    650
    that can be cleared up only by wading through muddles, and the D scheme is one of the muddles. We shall reach a better day when Purchase Tax is abolished altogether. The intermediate stage, in my opinion, should and must be a universal turnover tax at as low a figure as 1 per cent., which would give the Chancellor all the money he wants to pay for the extravagancies and absurdities of six years of Socialism.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mrs. Castle: The Committee has been delighted, as always, by the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), but it has contained a very strange new doctrine-the doctrine that any Government must continue what they inherit. I think we shall look forward with interest to seeing the application of that doctrine in the fields of steel and transport.
    It really is rather a new one for hon. Members opposite, not one of whom tonight has yet been found to say a good word for the proposals in the Clause, and all of whom try to take refuge behind the fact that the previous Government, the Labour Government, set up a committee which issued a report, and that, therefore, they, like hypnotised rabbits must go along that same road. We know that the personality of the Labour Government was so compelling that it has left behind its dominant character in this Chamber, but we had not realised that it had gone quite so far as this.
    I should like to help the hon. Gentleman in his assessment of the business position of the country. He said he had not got the figures of the latest failures. Let me refer—
    Sir W. Darling: On a point of order. I said I could give the figures, but I understood that I should have been out of order, Mr. Bowles.
    The Temporary Chairman: I told the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that to quote the figures of bankruptcies was going too far from the Question before the Committee. That applies to the hon. Lady as well.
    Mrs. Castle: But, Mr. Bowles, I am about to give textile figures, which are strictly related to this subject. They are figures which arise from the unemployment difficulties now being felt in the

    651
    textile industry, and which, therefore, do relate to this Clause, which will, if passed, make those difficulties in the textile industry very much worse and will necessarily increase the number of business failures.
    The Temporary Chairman: As I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), he was going to quote figures generally for the whole country. If the hon. Lady is quoting figures confined to the textile industry she will be in order.
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, I wish merely to refer the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), to the City columns of "The Times"ߞI think of yesterday, though it may have been the day beforeߞin which was painted a very interesting though very gloomy picture of the growth of business failures now in the textile areas. It referred to the situation as one that has not been experienced since the war, and one in which firms are beginning to go to the wall. That City column moreover foresaw that that situation would be likely to get worse and not to get better.
    I must say the speech of the hon. Gentleman tonight will not be welcome in the textile circles of this country, because he has done the very thing they have been begging this Committee not to doߞhe has perpetuated the uncertainty about Purchase Tax and the future levels of it. The hon. Gentleman's speech tonight, I am afraid, coupled with the speech of my colleague in the representation of Blackburn, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), will plunge the textile industry into confusion once again.
    People in the textile industry do not know where the hon. Members opposite stand on this vital issue. They have had a statement from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South, who is a trader and businessman himself, whom one would have expected to have appreciated their point of view and to have spoken rather more seriously than he has done tonight.
    They have been told by him and by many Members on the other side of the Committee that this is a bad tax, that the D scheme is a bad scheme, that it is harmful to industry, and that they intend some time soon to do something
    652
    about it. That is the very sort of statement which will do harm, and which will perpetuate that lack of confidence in the industry, robbing it of a basis on which it can plan for the future.
    Sir W. Darling: Does not the hon. Lady underrate the toughness of fibre of the Lancashire people?
    Mrs. Castle: It is very easy for the hon. Gentleman to speak like that, but he does not represent an area which is now darkened by serious unemployment. If he did represent a Lancashire constituency, he would have thought a little more carefully before he spoke. In his desperate attempt to get the best of both worlds he has given Lancashire the worst of them, neither certainty today nor certainty tomorrow.
    Mr. Assheton: Perhaps the hon. Lady will recollect that I said that one of the greatest objections to this tax was its uncertainty and that I put forward alternative proposals which would have disposed of that uncertainty in the future.
    Mrs. Castle: I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West, in his place. I warned him that I would answer his speech if I were called. I wanted to deal with the very point he is now putting forward as a virtue on his side. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman is a very skilful politician, more skilful than is sometimes realised. He has once again blurred the edges of an issue which, if it were kept clear, would compel hon. Gentlemen opposite to vote with this side of the Committee in opposing the Clause and this tax in its entirety.
    The work of the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West, in the last two or three months has been the work of confusing the issue because he has been afraid to have a real, united front with us on this matter. On the one hand, he has talked of how Lancashire's need rose above party. On the other hand, every time we have tried to deal with the matter, not on the basis of any ideological Socialist assessment, but on the basis of what the trade and the industry themselves were asking, and when we have fought for the very remedies which every union, every manufacturer and every distributor in the industry, and the official organisation of the industry itself, the Cotton Board, have said were the only answer. the right hon. Gentleman has

    653
    accused us of playing party politics and has refused to back us up on the issue, with the result that there have been some most astonishing confusions in his attitude.
    Last week, he would not support our Motion to abolish the Purchase Tax on textiles because he said it went too far. Now he will not come out cleanly for the abolition of Purchase Tax on textiles, because, he says, it does not go far enough. Last week, when we wanted to concentrate the decision narrowly on the textile trades because of the unemployment in them, he weakened us by widening our Motion for the removal of Purchase Tax to include its reduction or something else, or something else. This week, when, again, we are trying to concentrate our request to the Government on the narrow, specific issue of removing Purchase Tax on textiles, the right hon. Gentleman comes along once again and weakens us by widening the issue.
    Tonight, he says it is not enough to abolish the Purchase Tax on textiles; we have to abolish Purchase Tax on everything. A demand like that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, is financially impossible and impractical. That is why he advances it. The Chancellor has a very easy answer to that one. To sweep away all Purchase Tax on everythingߞon jewellery, furs, and motor carsߞregardless of the employment position or of the luxury nature of the article, would be folly and financial ruin to this country at this time of difficulty.
    If we try, as we on this side have tried, to concentrate on the limited, specific issue of the position of the textile industry and the effects of the D scheme upon employment in it, we have a practical case which we can put to the Chancellor. This is something that we can ask for reasonably. We could, if we had really united on this, have compelled the Government to give it to us, but we have not had support from the right hon Gentleman.
    Mr. Assheton: The action I have taken will do more good to Lancashire than the action which the hon. Lady is proposing.
    Mrs. Castle: What is that action? The action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken has been, every time we have asked for what the trade is wanting, to
    654
    find some reason for opposing it. Once again, tonight, the action which the right hon. Gentleman will take will be to go into the Division Lobby and vote for the Clause. I appreciate that he wishes to keep in office a Government that is perilously balanced on a narrow majority, but I still say that if he had fought with us unitedly and determinedly, and with his other colleagues from Lancashire, we could have compelled the Government to give us that which is essential to the survival of the industry.
    When hon. Gentlemen opposite vote for this Clause they know that they will be sending a chill wind of despair through Lancashire and other areas where unemployment is mounting and where a depression is spreading whose end nobody can at present foresee. How ironical it is that it should be this Government which, when it was the Opposition, lost no opportunity of attacking Purchase Tax and of blaming the Government of the day for not taking more and more goods out of it, should, when it came into office at a time of textile depression, make one of its first acts the putting of Purchase Tax on to a range of textile articles which, under the Labour Government, were exempt.
    That is the whole crux of our argument. That is why we are asking for the abolition of Purchase Tax. We know the financial difficulties of the country, and that it is no good coming along with a frivolous suggestion like that of the right hon. Gentleman to sweep away the tax altogether. We know that to rob the country of too much revenue would mean we should have to get what the right hon. Gentleman wants, slashing economies in Government expenditure and in the social services. We have weighed up the situation very carefully, and we are convinced of two things. We cannot get over the administrative and import and export difficulties of the Utility scheme on the lines suggested by the Douglas Committee without either putting tax for the first time on a range of goods which never carried it before, or recognising that we have to abolish Purchase Tax on these articles altogether.
    Mr. Assheton: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is a very good and gallant debater, but by voting against the Clause she will certainly do herself no good. If she votes

    655
    against Clause 7 she will put back Purchase Tax just as it was before. We shall be in a far worse position without the D scheme than with it.
    Mrs. Castle: There are several answers to that. I said a moment ago that the right hon. Gentleman was a tricky politician, and he is showing it now—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Yes. Clearly, as everybody knows, this is only the beginning of a series of debates which add up to a demand from this side that Purchase Tax should be abolished or, failing that, that the evils of the D scheme should be removed.
    What the Clause does—the right hon. Gentleman had better realise this when he votes for it—is to say quite specifically that goods which before were tax—free as Utility, shall now be taxed. That means a dropping of demand for clothing and other textile goods at a time when Lancashire is anxiously striving to stimulate demand. How any Lancashire M.P. can vote for that, I do not know—unless he has had some much better fights behind the scenes than he has put up on the Floor of the House.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ian Horobin(Oldham, East): The hon. Lady has been arguing that it is unreasonable to try to sweep away all Purchase Tax because that would lead to legitimate demands for big cuts in social services, and so on, but that it is legitimate to attempt to get the tax off textiles because that is practical. That is how I understand her argument. Does she challenge that to take off the tax from textiles would cost about £80 million? If that is so, what cuts would she suggest to replace that £80 million, or what additional taxation should be imposed to raise that amount?
    Mrs. Castle: Apart from the fact that we already have a surplus, I would point out that in the Budget we have given Income Tax concessions to the tune of £180 million under which a married man, without any family responsibilities, earning £2,500 a year is given £60 a year more by the Government. It is quite wrong—
    Mr. Horobin rose—
    Mrs. Castle: I shall be up all night if I keep giving way.
    656
    I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that a very substantial part of the case against the Clause depends on the fact that as long as the textile depression continues, there is a loss of revenue from Income Tax and Profits Tax in the industry, because of the drop in purchasing and, therefore, in profits, and because of the drop in wages for the workers who pay the Income Tax. There is also additional expenditure for unemployment benefit, and if the depression continues and widens as a result of the uncertainty that hangs over the industry, and which the Clause makes worse, it is the belief of the industry that the Chancellor will lose as much as he gains by refusing to abolish Purchase Tax.
    I should like, in this connection, to quote the memorandum of the Furnishing Fabric Association, which, as I think Members of the Committee know, has been most harshly hit by the operation of the D scheme. The Federation, having made a most impressive case for the complete abolition of Purchase Tax as the only way to end this uncertainty that hangs over the industry, point out that
    "a perpetual on of the incubus of Purchase Tax on textiles will defeat its own ends, less and less Purchase Tax will be collected and the reduction of trade will reduce traders' profits and liability to tax."
    We are not, therefore, in making this request to the Chancellor tonight, asking for something in the realms of unreality. We are asking for something which is financially practical and which is certainly desperately needed as a step to relieve depression in an important industry.
    The way in which the Government have hung about on this matter and have messed about with the situation at a time when the industry said that one thing was needed above all else—swiftness of action, certainty of knowledge—has shocked many of their own supporters in Lancashire.
    Members of firms came to me and said, "Well, Mrs. Castle, I am a Conservative, but I did think that this Government of business men would at least be businesslike." Instead, we have been left in the dark. When the most impressive deputation the cotton industry has ever sent to Whitehall went to the Minister of State for Economic Affairs a few weeks ago, they were told. "We will see what

    657
    we can do on the Finance Bill." And we are still being told, "We will see what we can do tomorrow." With unemployment going up and firms going bankrupt it is too much to say, "We will see if we can do a little wingle on the D level, or a little something else here and there," when what we wanted is something dramatic and something definite.
    Mr. Harold Davies(Leek): Will my hon. Friend tell us if the word "wingle" is the diminutive of
    "wangle"?
    Mrs. Castle: That is as good an explanation as any and I do not think I will try to better it; I think the Committee know perfectly well what I have in mind.
    What the Government have to realise is that they are in a serious dilemma in trying to operate the Douglas scheme, especially when it is applied to the cloth which is Lancashire's staple industry. Either they have to draw the D level at a line which fatally cripples the more expensive section of the trade, or they have to give us a D line so high that, in effect, the largest proportion of apparel and other cloths is exempted from tax altogether. In that situation they might as well recognise that they have lost the revenue and abolish the tax and let us get a clean administrative position and finality on the matter.
    It is quite impossible for the Government to allow this Bill to go through without doing something for the D level of class B material. My colleague from Blackburn knows perfectly well that the furnishing fabrics section of the industry is facing ruin unless something is done. It is facing ruin because out of 121 Utility curtain cloth specifications that were tax free under the Utility scheme, only three are tax free under the D scheme. Ninety—nine per cent. of the furnishing fabrics which were sold tax free as Utility in 1951 will now have to bear tax. In a situation like that the industry cannot carry on and firms will be closing if something is not done, and done quickly.
    If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does what is necessary for the furnishing fabrics section of the industry he will, in effect, have to wipe out the Purchase Tax on fabrics altogether because we cannot discriminate under the D scheme as we could under the Utility scheme. There
    658
    are no specifications enabling us to say that the tax will be so much on one quality cloth and less on another quality. We have to lump all class B material, all cotton and rayon cloth, together under one D line. Therefore, when we look at that line and decide to amend it, either we have to alter it here and there in a way that will lead to administrative confusion, or if we are to give the relief that the most expensive sections of the industry must have, we have to relieve almost everything.
    It might as well be recognised that the revenue will not be what it was previously; and if the industry is to be saved why not, if there is to be a substantial loss of revenue in any event, do what the industry wants? Why not give it the finality, the certainty, the administrative cleanness that the abolition of Purchase Tax would give it? Why not recognise that since the Douglas Committee was set up the whole climate of Lancashire has changed?
    The whole situation is different. Today, the textile industry is fighting for its very survival. It is still waiting for a sign of some decisive action from this Government. I say to the Chancellor that there is still time for an eleventh-hour repentance and for the sanity of getting up and telling us that he will lift Purchase Tax altogether.
    Mr. F. J. Erroll(Altrincham and Sale): I am very glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle). She has made a number of statements with which we on this side of the Committee are of course in partial agreement. We recognise that the tax imposes some very real complications and difficulties upon the firms whose goods attract tax I think, however, that the hon Lady spoiled her case by palpable exaggeration at many points.
    It is a great pity that she should say that large numbers of firms will have to close down simply because their goods may attract some tax—
    Mrs. Castle: I made that remark in the context of my reference to the furnishing fabrics firms. It is those firms which, if this tax level is not drastically altered, will definitely have to close down.
    Mr. Erroll: There is considerable scope for debate about individual tax levels, but it would be entirely wrong to suggest that because there is some element of tax in a sales price the public will not buy at all and that the firms will therefore have to close down.
    Even if the public were not willing to buy an article that had an element of tax in its sale price it would in all probability be open to the firm to manufacture a different type of article which did not attract tax. I grant the point that furnishing fabrics provide a particularly difficult case but it is dangerous to generalise overmuch on one difficult case if one wishes to try to survey the picture as a whole, which is what I want to do tonight.
    When the new scheme was first announced it met, generally speaking, with a wide measure of approval. It was considered to be a considerable step forward. It wiped out the blind spot, it introduced a more even graduation of tax, and it was generally regarded as a welcome measure by the trades most affected, namely, the textile trades which we have been discussing. There has, however, developed a considerable opposition to the incidence of Purchase Tax on textiles as distinct from the operation of the D scheme.
    It would be appropriate to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in regard to Purchase Tax levied on textiles. Does he propose to continue to use Purchase Tax on textiles as a planning instrument, as it was called by his predecessors, to discourage home consumption and thus automatically to encourage exports? Is it still to be the planning instrument that it was once designed and intended to be, or is it just a device to collect revenue?
    8.45 p.m.
    If it is a device to collect revenue it is not, so far as textiles are concerned, a very satisfactory or successful device. It is not satisfactory, because for some reason the public have a marked reluctance to pay tax on textile purchases. They seem to be quite prepared to pay tax on tobacco or cigarettes or beer, and when they go to the cinema. But it is a tremendous attraction for the public when they see goods displayed in a shop window with a notice, "All the goods in this window are tax free." That is a
    660
    powerful factor which I think it would be wrong for any Chancellor to ignore.
    I am sure that the Chancellor has been looking at this matter very carefully, and has received figures and statistics from his regional tax collecting officers. But I would put it to him that probably many of the figures on which he has been working out his calculations in the last few weeks are out of date; that they relate to those tax collecting periods before the impact of the D scheme began to be felt, and that much more up to date figures could be obtained from individual manufacturers and wholesalers. They can show exactly what has been the effect of the D scheme and of the consequential tax changes since the Budget resolutions were made public.
    There is still a fair volume of sales and movement of textiles from the factories to the consumers in this country. What is particularly significant is that the volume of sales has gone up very considerably in relation to those goods which are now tax free under the new scheme, and that there has been a most marked falling off in the movement of goods which attract any form of tax. Rightly or wrongly, the wholesalers and retailers have decided that the public will not buy taxed articles and so they are not prepared to stock up their shelves with them. They have concentrated on the tax free articles and such signs of recovery as there have been are signs of movement in the lowest grades of goods which are now tax free.
    It is, I suggest, a great pity that there should be this pronounced swing in the case of the consumer—who has to consider his purse very much—in favour of the cheapest quality goods. It is a great pity that quality should be taxed so heavily at the present time. Surely we all realise that it is best to buy the best one can. It is the best policy in many ways. Not only is it a benefit to the workers but it is a benefit to the national economy. It is far better to buy, for example, one good shirt, using one lot of cotton rather than to have to buy two bad shirts, or shoddy shirts, requiring the importation of twice as much raw cotton, even though the cottons may not be of comparable qualities. There is still the cost of moving the extra volume of cotton and the time of work-people taken in making up and distributing two shirts instead of one

    661
    I consider it most important for us as a nation to realise that we should encourage our own people to buy the best quality articles and that there should be no device of taxation which will encourage them to buy the worst quality. I want to see the public buying the very best they can afford, because in the long run that will be the best thing for their interests as well as for the interests of the country. I hope that the Chancellor will look at the incidence of the tax from that point of view as well.
    There are many other disadvantages in the Purchase Tax on textiles. The system of uplift bears particularly harshly and heavily on the distributors of textiles. The D scheme imposes very real complexities and difficulties on the work of the wholesalers, upon whom falls the main burden of the collection of this tax. They have to do extra work, and I have put down an Amendment to a later Clause which is designed to simplify their onerous and difficult task.
    On the retailers there are further obligations. We have never yet been told what is the cost of operating the Personal Export scheme about which one sees notices in the shop windows of most retailers in London and the tourist centres. It is an elaborate administrative machine built up solely to enable foreigners visiting this country to avoid the Purchase Tax which we have to pay. It is recognised that the foreigner does not like paying Purchase Tax. It is about time that the Chancellor realised that the British public do not like paying the tax either and that people will do all they can to avoid it.
    Mr. Arthur Moyle (Oldbury and Halesowen): I should like to get this point clear. Does the hon. Gentleman contend that the old Utility scheme should be retained, because that scheme provided for textile goods without Purchase Tax at a guaranteed standard of quality?
    Mr. Erroll: No, I do not contend that at all. The report of the Committee which recommended the D scheme was welcomed generally at the time, for very good reasons. I grant that circumstances have changed since then, but I do not think a reversion to the old Utility scheme would be of long-term benefit. It would impose an excessively heavy weight of taxation on a relatively small
    662
    range of articles. It would have the disadvantage of creating a blind spot, and it would add to the difficulties of those manufacturers who have both home and export orders to fulfil.
    To conclude the point which I was discussing, I would say that we have never been told how expensive it is to operate the Personal Export scheme. That probably costs £1 million a year, which should be offset against the income from this tax. Back at the mills, the incidence of the tax as at present designed has already led to some important examples of what I can only describe as taxation weaving, not weaving to produce the best cloth or furnishing fabric, but weaving special mixtures of fibres so that the cloth produced will not attract tax.
    We have had many examples of this form of industrial activity among engine makers and users of transport vehicles, who have been compelled to go in for a good deal of taxation engineering to escape the worst effects of the duty on hydrocarbon oils. I am sorry to see the same distortion creeping into the textile industry by what I can only describe as taxation weaving.
    I do not suppose that it would be possible to wipe out the tax in one sweep. The Chancellor's advisers are doubtless telling him that the tax is yielding a great deal of money. Naturally, the Chancellor must take heed of his advisers.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman(Nelson and Colne): When the hon. Gentleman says that, is he thinking of Purchase Tax on everything or only on textiles?
    Mr. Erroll: I should be out of order if I were to speak on Purchase Tax as it affects everything. This Clause refers only to textiles and certain related articles.
    Mr. Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that he is not in favour of the abolition of Purchase Tax on textiles?
    Mr. Erroll: The hon. Gentleman might give me an opportunity to complete my argument and then he will see clearly how I stand on the matter. I can well understand how the Chancellor himself may feel it impossible to abolish the tax on textiles because of the figures with which he is doubtless consoling himself

    663
    just now. I put it to him, however, that during the current financial year he will experience a severe drop in the yield of this tax as it relates to textiles. It is no good counting on textiles to contribute much to the Revenue, because the tax is not coming in. Therefore, I submit that it would be much better for him to abolish the tax on textiles rather than to let the public abolish it for him.
    Miss Bacon: We on this side of the Committee sympathise with many hon. Gentlemen opposite. A week or two ago they put down a Motion asking for the abolition of Purchase Tax on textiles. We, wishing to be co-operative, added our names to that Motion. Now, once again, they are faced, as they were last week, with having to go into the Division Lobby in opposition to the Motion which they put on the Order Paper.
    Mr, Richard Fort (Clitheroe): May I refresh the hon. Lady's memory? The first Motion we put down was to revise or reconsider, not reduce.
    Miss Bacon: We have also proposed to revise, and it will be interesting to see how far hon. Members opposite will accompany us into the Division Lobby.
    We heard tonight a new principle enunciated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who said that because a previous Government had set up a committee, a subsequent Government was bound to accept the recommendations of that committee. Of course, it has never been accepted that any Government which did not set up a committee should accept the whole of the recommendations which it makes, and I feel quite certain that, if my party had formed the Government, we should not have accepted everything that was in the Douglas Report.
    We have heard a great deal about the effect of the Purchase Tax on textiles and on employment in the textile industry. I would remind the Committee how serious the position is in the Lancashire cotton industry, the Yorkshire woollen industry and also in the clothing industry. We have been told, and I am quite sure we shall be told again tonight, by the Chancellor, that he cannot remove the Purchase Tax, and that, if he did, it would not cure unemployment in these areas.
    664
    I agree. I think that if we were to abolish Purchase Tax it would not entirely cure unemployment in Lancashire and Yorkshire, but what we on this side of the Committee say is that it would help the employment problem in those areas, and it would certainly help to remove the uncertainty which is being felt, not only by manufacturers of cloth. but also by manufacturers of clothing.
    I should like to remind the Chancellor that we are not just asking him to remove a tax which is already there; we are also asking him tonight not to impose taxes which have never before been imposed, because, under the D scheme as it stands, the Chancellor is imposing taxes on many cloths which were before free of Purchase Tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) has given a few examples of how this tax is going to affect lower-priced goods. I do not want to say too much about that tonight, because we shall have something more to say about it when we come to discuss the Schedule.
    Before the Chancellor makes any pronouncement upon that, I would remind him that a coat the wholesale price of which used to be £6, and on which the retail price was £13 6s. 8d., will in future cost £14 18s. 5d., and that will be an increase of 32s. A woman's coat of which the former selling price was £10 will in future be £10 13s. 9d.
    I should also like to point out to the Chancellor a curious fact which has been pointed out to me by members of the trade. The D figure for a woman's coat —the wholesale figure—is £6. The retail price—
    Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham): £6 10s.
    9.0 p.m.
    Miss Bacon: Well, £6 10s. The retail price will be about £8. The curious thing is that a coat which is within the D level on the wholesale price will have Purchase Tax levied on it because of the uplift which is applied. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look into this case, because it does mean that clothing which is supposed to be free of tax under this scheme will actually have taxation imposed upon it.
    A woman's suit which had an old selling price of £13 8s. 4d. will have a new selling price of £15 1ls., and a dress of a

    665
    very cheap kind—a moygashel—which had an old selling price of 81s. 7d., will have a new selling price of 87s. I am sure we shall have a great deal more to say about these prices when we come to the Schedules on another day, but I want to stress the fact that it is not only because of unemployment in Lancashire and Yorkshire that we are asking for a revision of the D scheme.
    We believe that even if there were no unemployment in Lancashire and Yorkshire it would still be a great necessity for the consumers to have these D levels altered. I think that the consumer is, perhaps, being forgotten—understandably so—because of the unemployment position at the moment, but I believe that there is a very good case, even without any unemployment at all in Lancashire and Yorkshire, for lifting the D level to the old top Utility level so that the lower priced goods shall not in future be subject to Purchase Tax.
    I would point out to the Chancellor, before we come to the Schedules, some of the anomalies and discrepancies which occur under his scheme. It seems to me that the figures were inserted in a most haphazard way, and it is very difficult to see how some of them were arrived at at all.
    The Temporary Chairman: I think that part of the hon. Lady's speech should be postponed until we come to the Schedules. It is all right to discuss the scheme in general, but particulars should not be given now. They should be postponed until we come to the Schedules.
    Miss Bacon: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, but that was not the Ruling of the previous occupant of the Chair, who allowed discussion on these matters.
    The Temporary Chairman: With great respect to the hon. Lady I was sitting here for the hon. Lady I was getting here for three-quarters of an hour before 8 O'clock and the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) did, I agree, give one or two examples, as the hon. Lady herself has done, about increases under the D scheme. But the hon. Lady must not go into details now on how those figures are arrived at, but must wait until we reach the Schedules.
    Miss Bacon: here is one point I wish to raise which does not arise under one
    666
    particular Schedule, but which is applicable to the Schedules as a whole. It is the discrepancy which occurs as between cloth and clothes, and I do not think that matter can be raised under a particular Schedule. Perhaps if I may be allowed to develop this, you, Mr. Bowles, could tell me whether or not it is in order.
    It has been pointed out to me that there is a great discrepancy as between the price of cloth and the price of clothes, but whereas, for instance, the D level of a certain cloth has gone up under the D scheme from 21s. 1ld. to 22s. 2d.—
    The Temporary Chairman: I think I have listened to enough of what the hon. Lady has to say on that point. What she has to say on this matter should be brought up in the debate on the Motion that the Fourth Schedule stand part of the Bill.
    Miss Bacon: I have to bow to your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, and will therefore postpone most of my speech until next week. There are, however, certain points I should have liked to put to the Chancellor before he takes decisions on them, as I expect will happen in the next few days. At any rate, we have here an example in the whole of the D scheme of the Budget once again making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
    I hope that the Chancellor will make some concessions tonight which will put an end to uncertainty in the trade. If he merely says that he will alter the D levels at some future date then, I am afraid, unemployment in Lancashire and Yorkshire will grow worse because people are waiting to see what will happen. I hope, therefore, that the announcement he will make will be one which will not only lead to cheaper goods, but will give some hope to the textile trade that the uncertainty in which they are at present will be ended.
    Sir A. Salter: I wonder whether it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a few comments now. The debate which we have just had, ranging over a very wide ground, dealing with the particular and dealing also with a very wide principle, has shown that a good deal of what hon. Members have in mind and have argued in relation to the question that this Clause should stand part of the Bill, could relevantly and

    667
    perhaps more appropriately be argued in relation to later Amendments or the appropriate Schedule.
    The debate has ranged very wide indeed. Before we came to this question we dealt with furniture, and it has been indicated that we shall deal with fur-trimmed goods under the new Clause at a later stage. But quite a number of other arguments have been used and in some cases developed at considerable length that could be more appropriately argued in relation to the particular Schedule and the particular goods.
    Putting those aside and turning to the general question raised and taking the widest proposal made, it is clearly not a proposal for today but a suggestion for the future. The disadvantages of Purchase Tax as a whole have been argued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton). I think all of us realise that this tax, like indeed every tax of which I am aware, has certain disadvantages.
    One of those disadvantages, of course, is the way it has to be re-argued in detail every year in the House and in this Committee, and the uncertainty and the greatly disturbing effect upon different industries that arises when both manufacturers and, to some extent, the purchasing public are speculating from time to time as to what changes in the Purchase Tax there may be. I think we all realise that, but, of course, nobody seriously thinks that the whole tax can be removed now. The arguments have ranged over the whole sphere of Purchase Tax and were not confined to those articles covered by the Douglas scheme. I think it is relevant to all that we are considering with regard to this or any other tax—and it is true—that the importance of uncertainty is a very serious factor indeed.
    To take an analogy from a different sphere, I remember that when I was engaged at Geneva, dealing with external trade and the impediment of tariffs, I was struck by the fact that the risk of the instability of a tariff was sometimes a greater handicap to trade than the actual height of the tariff itself. I think the same applies in the home trade with regard to other taxes.
    I do not propose to discuss any further any arguments relating to the whole of
    668
    Purchase Tax. I come to what has occupied the bulk of interest in this debate—the proposals with regard to textiles. I should like to say here that I also am a Lancashire Member and that I have studied and considered this question in very close consultation with deputations from both the cotton and wool industries. I am sure the Committee will believe that if we are not able to do what we are being asked to do here it is not because we are not very acutely conscious of the troubles of the textile industry at present.
    We do not think what has been proposed would be the best way of handling these difficulties. The proposals made to us from the Opposition Front Bench have varied considerably. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested in the Budget debate that we should take off all Purchase Tax from textiles, but that it should be done temporarily. One thing, however, that was impressed upon me when I saw the cotton deputation was this: they said, "We do not want a tax holiday," and, above all, I gathered, they would not like a tax holiday for an uncertain period. If that was the right hon. Gentleman's idea, it has been modified a good deal since then. A little later his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said that nothing else would suffice than a complete scrapping of the tax on textiles.
    Today a rather smaller proposal has been produced. It is, if I understand it aright, that the D level should be so arranged as to prevent any article which was not taxed before from now being brought under tax. If that proposal is examined closely it will be seen that, as regards the D scheme, it is, in effect, although not of logical necessity, a wrecking Amendment—an Amendment that would make it practically impossible to go on with the D scheme. It would mean a re-enactment of the thousand-odd pages of specifications; it would also mean a very great loss of revenue, and it would mean the introduction of a principle that could hardly in that form not extend to ranges outside textiles.
    I come therefore to the question whether we really can or should contemplate what is practically the throwing over of the D scheme. I fully accept that the responsibility for the D scheme is that of the

    669
    present Government. We cannot just say that because the Douglas Committee recommended it we have no responsibility. Of course we have. We have accepted it, and we have chosen the D levels. But it is worth remembering that the Douglas Committee was set up for very real and strong reasons. The old Purchase Tax had developed such difficulties and abuses that it could not go on in that form. For that reason the former Chancellor of the Exchequer appointed the Douglas Committee.
    If hon. Members look at the composition of that Committee and bear in mind that its recommendations were unanimous, I feel sure that they will be confirmed in the views, which certainly most of us hold, that the advantages of the scheme in avoiding the blind spot, in giving in many respects better advantages to the consumer than the old scheme did, and in dealing with the international difficulty of discrimination against imports, on the whole outweigh any disadvantages.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that whatever may be the truth about the Douglas Committee's Report, in the conditions of world trade that obtained when the Committee was appointed, the considerations which prevailed upon them are considerations which today in many respects, and certainly in the textile industry, do not apply any more?
    Sir A. Salter: It is, of course, true that conditions of trade in the textile industry are different from those which applied at the time when the Douglas Committee were sitting. But I suggest that there is still left a very strong ground for retaining the advantages that the Douglas scheme proposes. We have had a great many instances of anomalies—of cases in which articles not previously under tax are brought under tax. Let us not forget two things. First, great anomalies which existed under the old system have now been removed and, secondly, there are articles such as rubber goods that were taxed at the full rate before but which now come under the much more lenient D scheme.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood(Rossendale): Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that of the yield which is expected this year from Purchase Tax more than half will come from goods which were previously tax free?
    Sir A. Salter: I could not assent to that without a great deal of thought. It involves a forecast of the future and many other considerations.
    There is one other fallacy which has tended to get into the minds of some hon. Members. Great emphasis has been laid on the difference between the taxed articles and the non-taxed articles, as if the jump from one to the other was the same as under the old Utility scheme where, directly one got above the Utility point one jumped into the full rate of tax applicable to the particular article. But the very essence of the D scheme is that it shades up gradually, and although it is true that many articles which were not taxed before now come under the tax I think the effect of that is very often exaggerated.
    I should like to give two instances. Under the D scheme, if one takes the case of a man's shirt with two collars, it is tax free up to £1 8s. retail. A shirt retailing at £1 15s. has a tax of 1s. 9d. It is true that that is a tax but it is a relatively small one.
    Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West): Is it not with regard to shirts, almost more than any other article, that there has been trouble in relation to the new scheme? The trouble arises over the fact that all the articles are lumped together. I have made inquiries and I am informed that these are the very articles in relation to which there has been great discontent which has led to representations to the Government by the Shirt Manufacturers' Federation.
    Mr. M. Follick (Loughborough): The right hon. Gentleman says it is a small tax; but it is 5 per cent.
    Sir A. Salter: I should not have thought that it was a great tax in relation to the article mentioned. These interventions have shown me that I was wise in suggesting that particular cases should be dealt with under the relevant Schedules instead of in a debate on a Clause.
    I do not think the Committee will expect the Government to agree to a modification of this Clause as it now stands. It is obvious that we must go on with this scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The case has been argued during the Budget debates, and hon. Members have in their minds the long and full arguments

    671
    about the Douglas Committee Report. It is quite clear that I cannot here and now make any statement as to a change in the main system of Purchase Tax and D tax.
    Mr. H. Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman says he cannot here and now make any statement, does that mean that he is going to make a statement later, or does it mean that he is going to prolong this uncertainty from which trade and industry are suffering at present?
    Sir A. Salter: No. In the nature of the case, while we are continuing the discussion of those parts of the Finance Bill relating to Purchase Tax, there must be some element of uncertainty. The Chancellor has said that he will look at the Amendments in turn as they come along, and that is one reason why I hope we shall get on as quickly as possible to those parts of the Bill on which consideration of that kind can be given and expressed.
    I am only saying that in relation to this Clause, which we are asking to stand part, it is obvious that we cannot scrap Purhase Tax or the D scheme, as a scheme. We have been considering the problem of the textile industry and seeing what can be done. We were impressed not only by the fact that the causes of the recession were world-wide but by the fact that, as far as we could see from the evidence, the element of the tax played a very small part. We were anxious that, as far as possible, we should see that if we spent a certain amount of money it should have its maximum effect. In our opinion we got that effect by the policy announced of accelerated additional Government orders for the textile industry.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: That does not help the furnishing fabrics industry.
    Sir A. Salter: I do not say that it does everything to help everybody, but I do say that every £1's worth of accelerated expenditure has £l's worth of effect on the trade, whereas, on the evidence we had, a similar loss of revenue or expenditure in any other way would have had a relatively small effect.
    I was a little surprised by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) about the effect of the tax on the choice by the public of different goods. My evidence
    672
    was not the same. When I saw the cotton deputation, I was struck by the fact that the recession in demand appeared to have affected the articles which were and always had been tax free almost as much as those above that line.
    I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman, who pressed the proposal to exempt textile articles from tax, that a considerable number of goods in the shops at the moment, even above the level of those which were never taxed, are often exempt from tax because they were made before the Budget, or under contracts entered into before the Budget. They have, nevertheless, been lying in the shops, in spite of the fact that they are tax free.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I am trying to follow the argument. Is it the serious argument of the right hon. Gentleman that because goods which are now untaxed cannot be sold, that is a good reason for putting a tax on some other goods?
    Sir A. Salter: That was not my argument. I was dealing with the particular position of the textile industry at the moment, and I suggest that the facts I have produced as evidence tend to show two things: first, that the incidence of the tax was a relatively small factor in causing the recession in demand; and, second, that by the loss of a given amount of revenue for the expenditure of a given amount of money, we can get immensely more significant results in the way which we have chosen to adopt than by a remission of Purchase Tax or a change in the D level.
    I do not pretend for a moment that that is a decisive or final argument. I am only saying that I think the case has been put too high and the argument pressed too far. We shall have later Amendments on the Schedule before us, but I trust the Committee will be prepared to allow this Clause to stand part and to devote their arguments to the Schedule and to later Amendments.
    Mr. J. Grimond(Orkney and Shetland): I wish to detain the Committee for only a short time, and I do so because there is a small textile industry in my constituency and also, as has been said by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), because this is a matter of widespread interest, as the tax imposed under this Clause will affect a great many people.

    673
    There are many people who will suffer somewhat as the result of the Budget and who will not benefit from the concessions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to make. Undoubtedly, they will look very closely at the new prices which they will have to pay for their clothing as the result of this tax.
    I do not think that the Minister of State for Economic Affairs was a very enthusiastic defender of these proposals. [HON. MEMBERS "Where is he?"] The only arguments which he seemed to advance in their defence were, first, that it is proposed—
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Is it not in the highest degree discourteous for an official spokesman for the Government, speaking from the Government Front Bench, to leave the debate immediately after sitting down, without waiting for any comment that may be made directed to him by speakers on the other side?
    The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order, though it may be a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Hon. Members: Here is the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Grimond: Now that we have a full house from the Treasury I think I can go on with my speech.
    I was saying that the arguments advanced in defence of the Clause were, first, that the proposals were, at least, less bad than the old Purchase Tax, and, second, that the Government, having committed themselves to the proposals, felt that they must continue with them. What I feel is one point with which the Government should deal is, that when the Budget was introduced one of the chief dangers rightly thought to be threatening the country was the danger of inflation. Is that still thought so today?
    A good deal of the argument, for instance, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), was addressed to distinguishing between the planning instrument aspect of this tax and the revenue raising aspect of the tax. I think that in this case both those considerations stand or fall together. That is to say, in so far as this is a planning instrument, it is a planning instrument
    674
    to raise surplus revenue, which may be necessary in times of inflation; but it seems to me that the fact of the matter today is that the Chancellor has to make up his mind whether we are still facing an inflationary situation or not. If we are that is his main justification.
    But I myself feel that in certain parts of the country, at any rate, we are passing from inflation to a lack of purchasing power, and, in certain commodities, that we are finding that the need now is not to curtail purchases of those commodities any longer but, if anything, to stimulate them. Will this new proposal lead to that? Personally, I do not think it will as it stands. I think that though it is preferable to the old form of Purchase Tax—certainly I am influenced in that opinion by the effect it has had on the hand weaving industry in my constituency—it will have to be a very much lower rate of tax.
    I think there is something in the argument that it will encourage high quality production, and I think it is a powerful argument that it will help the export trade; but it will, undoubtedly, tend to make it harder for the poorer section of the community, who used to buy utility goods at less price than they will now have to pay for their clothes, and I think that it is being introduced at a time when the case for it at the proposed levels has not been made as regards textiles, at least. The danger of inflation still persists but not universally. On the contrary, the need may well be to stimulate demand for certain commodities.
    What did alarm me rather in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman was that—if I understood him aright—there is to be considerable resistance to any reasonably high rises in the D level. My own feeling about that is that the D scheme should not be jettisoned. I do not accept the view that we can afford to forgo all the revenue which it will bring in, because in many parts of the country there is an inflationary tendency and in certain trades an excess of home demand, but the remedy, I think, would be to raise the D level for textiles very considerably, and if that means forgoing a certain amount of revenue it will be justified by the changes which it may help to bring about in the next few months.
    I hope that we shall hear from the Government not only that their mind is

    675
    not closed to adjustments of the D level but not closed to a considerable rise in it. I know that some hon. Members think we could well do away with the whole scheme, but I should like to feel that the Government will give us a very considerable concession on the general level as it affects textiles in present circumstances.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. W. M. F. Vane(Westmorland): I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that the Chancellor would look at the different Amendments, one after the other, at a later stage. In a very few sentences I am going to add a criticism which, I hope, he will accept in the spirit intended and not as a criticism of the whole D scheme. I do not think it is a definite all round retrograde step.
    It would be wrong if we closed the debate giving the impression that the scheme concerned the textile industry only. There are other industries concerned. I want to mention only one of them, and that very briefly. I am sure hon. Members will agree that it deserves mention, because it is so closely affected. It is the boot and shoe industry. Nor do I want to spoil my case by exaggeration, and I am not going to subscribe to the view that the level of tax proposed is likely to put any firms out of business, as the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) said when referring to furnishing fabrics. It does, however, constitute so steep a rise that it is very hard to see that injustice is not being done.
    I believe that the best calculation is that the boot and shoe trade last year paid something like £300,000 in Purchase Tax and that, under the proposals we are now considering, that figure is likely to rise into the neighbourhood of £5 million. That surely is far too steep a rise for us to accept without very close investigation. In addition, it should be put on record that there is little or no consultation with the boot and shoe trade on the lines of the consultation which, I believe, took place with various representatives of the textile trade.
    Up to the end of last year, the Purchase Tax charged on boots and shoes was not only very small but it affected only the very top of the factory-made ranges. Now it is to be brought a long way down, and
    676
    it is bound in the end to have an adverse effect on the standards of craftsmanship.
    There is one last human point I want to mention. It is usual for a manufacturer to produce a range of shoes of a definite quality only. Therefore, in regard to employment, the tax will not be spread evenly over the towns where shoes are manufactured. It is to be a burden which some are to be asked to bear in its entirety while others will go free. I hope that the Chancellor will look at the Amendments we have on the Paper very sympathetically at a later stage and see whether he can arrange for at least half the shoes which were previously free of tax to be free in the future.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I should like to begin by making an emphatic protest against the behaviour of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. It is a long time since I have seen any Minister behave with such disrespect to the Committee. He comes in late in the debate. He makes a speech which is barely relevant to the discussion, and immediately after he sits down he slinks out behind your Chair, Mr. Bowles. without even waiting for any comment or any reply to any argument, as he would call it, that he had thought it worth while to put to the Committee.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: My right hon. Friend has had no refreshment whatever since lunch, and went out entirely for the purpose of getting a little refreshment, which I think is perfectly reasonable. His other absences were purely for the sake of consultation upon an extremely complicated subject. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept my word that no discourtesy is intended by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Silverman: The Minister is not the only Member of the Committee who has had no refreshment for a long time. There are lots of people in Lancashire who have had no refreshment for many months, and there are some who will have no refreshment for many months to come. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not true."] With every possible sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman, I think he could have delayed his refreshment at least for five minutes to hear one speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yours?"] No, the speech of the hon. Gentleman behind me,

    677
    the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who does not even belong to my party: but he could not even wait for that one speech before slinking out. The argument which he advanced to the Committee—[An HON. MEMBER: "Did the hon. Member say 'Slinking'?"] Yes. certainly—slinking.
    Air Commodore A. V. Harvey (Macclesfield): Will the hon. Member give way?
    Mr. Silverman: No, not at this point.
    The Chairman: Order.
    Mr. Silverman: The hon. and gallant Member knows that I am never reluctant to give way, and I shall certainly be quite prepared to give way when I come to the argument which I want myself to address to the Committee if anybody wishes to comment upon it, but if anybody wishes to defend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, he is now in his place and can do it himself.
    Air Commodore Harvey: I think that the hon. Member has been most unfair. If he remembers, three or four years ago—I well remember it—there was an occasion when a right hon. Gentleman of the Labour Government was not in the Chamber when the debate started, but we did not hear any questions from the hon. Member on that occasion.
    Mr. Silverman: I do not know why the hon. and gallant Member thought it worth while to intervene to make that point. I am not going to defend discourtesy on anybody's part, whether it is now or three years ago, but there is all the difference in the world between being present at the commencement of a debate and blowing in, blowing off and blowing out. [An HON. MEMBER: "Take your
    hands out of your pockets."] At least they are in my own pockets.
    The Minister of State for Economic Affairs advanced a most extraordinary argument. He said that the Douglas Committee were appointed because there were a great many anomalies and that their Report was intended to cover or remove some of them. He agreed that so far as the textile industry is concerned, the situation in which the Government are proposing to apply the Douglas Committee's Report is a situation which the Douglas Committee never considered. All the considerations which influenced
    678
    the Douglas Committee in making their Report are considerations which no longer govern the situation so far, at any rate as the textile trade is concerned—and that the right hon. Gentleman conceded to me when I intervened in his speech.
    Therefore, whatever may be said about the Purchase Tax elsewhere, whatever may be said about the D scheme in other branches of industry, it is simply impossible to apply the argument of the Douglas Committee and the Douglas Report to these matters in connection with the textile trade, because in the textile trade there is a situation which the Douglas Committee were never able to contemplate. It has just nothing whatever to do with it.
    Mr. Burden: Is it not a fact that the Report of the Douglas Committee came out this year but that if the Committee were as alive as we believe them to have been, the writing was already on the wall and the recession in the textile industry had already taken place? It is quite wrong to say that it was a situation that they did not, and could not, contemplate.
    Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Member is right, the Minister of State for Economic Affairs and I are wrong together—
    Mr. Burden: Exactly.
    Mr. Silverman: —because he and I agreed in the Member's hearing less than a quarter of an hour ago that the situation was entirely different; and if it was entirely different, the considerations which influenced the Douglas Committee no longer apply in the existing circumstances. I should have thought that might be readily conceded. We have a great many matters about which we are seriously in dispute, and we do not need to waste time on matters which are not capable of serious controversy.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say something which I thought more extraordinary still. He said that the market was falling, that there were a great many untaxed textile goods in the shops, that people were not buying any —not because they were not good textiles, not because they did not need them, not because they did not want them, but because they were too dear and beyond their power to purchase them, or they would have been purchased long ago
    Mr. Beresford Craddock (Spelthorne)indicated dissent.
    Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member must accept the obvious facts and ought to exercise a little of his well known intelligence. If he will apply it to the obvious facts, I think he will agree that I am not inviting him to draw any unfair inference. The goods are in the shops, they are excellent goods, goods which people require, goods which people are not buying, and, in the absence of any other reason, one must assume that the goods are beyond their means to purchase.
    Mr. Craddock: All I took exception to was that my right hon. Friend did not say that the goods were not being bought because people could not afford them, but simply stated the fact that they were there, untaxed and not being bought. The hon. Member is misquoting what my right hon. Friend said, and that is why I shook my head.
    Mr. Silverman: I am bound to say that this is a matter again on which the Minister and I seem to be having what he, no doubt, would think is an unholy alliance against hon. Members who sit behind him.
    Sir A. Salter: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is giving a rather wider extension to what I said. I said that if one examined the extent to which demand had fallen in the taxed and untaxed goods, it gave one reason to think that for the purpose of getting work going again a given amount of money would not best be used in remitting tax. We thought we got better value for money by the way we acted.
    Mr. Silverman: This is only a restatement of the argument I heard and understood the first time, but it goes beyond that part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with which I happen to be dealing at the moment. I understand what he says about the use of the money and the advantages of doing this or that. It is exactly on that point that I shall make a comment in a moment, but what we are agreed on is that this is a falling market.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman what can there be more anomalous than to raise prices on a falling market, and that
    680
    is what the right hon. Gentleman is recommending to the Committee. I really find that an extraordinary argument. The whole purpose of this D scheme is to raise prices on some articles and, if it is agreed that now—so very differently from what the situation was when the Douglas Committee first met—we have a falling market, I think it is the height of economic folly to raise the prices at this time.
    I do not want to exaggerate the importance of this Purchase Tax matter.
    Air Commodore Harvey: The Douglas Committee sat, I believe, originally last July and the recession started although it was not apparent, round about that time with travellers coming from North America with very few orders. By the end of September and in October it was quite apparent. Would it not have been possible for the Government of the day then to widen the terms of reference so that the Committee could have gone into the matter in greater detail?
    Mr. Silverman: I should have thought it was possible, and if the late Government were at fault in not doing so that may be so. I am not here to argue about that at the moment. But how much greater folly it would be not to extend their terms of reference later still when the situation was much more obvious, and how ridiculous it would be to apply, in circumstances as we know them today, in February, 1952, recommendations made in those very different circumstances of July, 1951.
    I do not want to exaggerate the importance of this matter. I am not one of those who believe that there is any permanent cure for the textile difficulties in this country on the lines of Purchase Tax remission alone. So far as I know, no one on this side of the Committee, nor indeed on the other side, has, in urging the lifting of Purchase Tax altogether on textile goods, ever regarded this as a permanent cure for the difficulties or any permanent remedy.
    9.45 p.m.
    We have to look elsewhere for permanent remedies. One of the things we complain of about the Government—it would be out of order to discuss it now——is that they have so far shown no sign whatever of any constructive thought at all about how this matter is to be dealt

    681
    with. They do not know what the level of the industry is to be. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you?"] If I were in order in doing so, I could offer certain permanent or long-term remedies, but I do not think it would be in order to do so now, and I do not want to pursue the point.
    Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. Hon. Gentlemen opposite keep addressing the Chair. They keep on saying "Do you." Will you, Sir Charles, teach them some of the ordinary rules of debate? We do not want this unmannerly backchat; we want a proper and orderly debate
    Mr. Silverman: I am quite sure, Sir Charles, that no one would complain of your conduct with regard to the textile industry or its difficulties. My complaint about the Government is that they have shown no sign whatever of doing any constructive or long-term thinking on this subject.
    Though I agree at once that this Purchase Tax matter can be exaggerated, certainly in its bearing upon long-term or permanent remedies, nevertheless, it is very important indeed at this moment. There can be no help for the textile industry unless we can recapture old markets and win new ones. We can begin first with the market on our own doorstep, and it is in that regard that Purchase Tax is important. Much has been said about the reasons for imposing Purchase Tax and whether they were revenue reasons or economic planning reasons. The reasons why Purchase Tax was first imposed and why it was maintained are well known.
    During the war Purchase Tax was imposed in order to discourage people from competing with one another in the purchase of goods that must be in short supply and must become in shorter supply. It was done as an anti-inflationary measure in order to keep prices down, not in order to raise them. In those circumstances nobody had any serious complaint against it.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke(Dorset. South): The hon. Member is quite wrong.
    Mr. Silverman: I thought it was. If the noble Lord thinks there were other objects, no doubt he can let us know what they are. One of the objects, and in my opinion the main object—
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Purchase Tax put up the price and that reduced consumption.
    Mr. Silverman: It put prices up and prevented a very much vaster increase of prices that would have followed had there been a free scramble among people for goods that were not being made. I thought that was perfectly plain. If the noble Lord differs, he will have his opportunity of saying so.
    In the period following the war it was imposed to curtail home consumption at a time when our principal emphasis had to be on producing for foreign markets, and it was right to maintain it then. But, in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, neither of these reasons are in the least important. They no longer exist. There is no reason whatever for maintaining Purchase Tax on textiles in the circumstances which now prevail. It seems to me that among Lancashire Members there is virtual unanimity on this issue. However we may differ about other things, and, Heaven knows, there are many things about which we do differ, I believe that if this question of whether Purchase Tax should remain or should be wholly removed from textile goods were left to the decision of the Lancashire Members, without distinction of party, there would be virtually a unanimous vote in favour of removing Purchase Tax wholly from textile goods.
    I would willingly give way for a moment if there is any Lancashire Member who contests that.
    Sir Ian Fraser(Morecambe and Lonsdale): May I interrupt the hon. Member?
    Mr. Silverman: I asked for a Lancashire Member.
    Sir I. Fraser: I am one. I do not contest it. but it is great nonsense, because obviously every special interest or special county would vote for its own special interest.
    Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member does not contest it, whatever his reasons are, because he thinks it great nonsense.
    Mr. Horobin: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member at great length, but he issued a challenge to find a Lancashire Member who did not agree with him and who agreed with the Chancellor. I happen to be one.
    Mr. Silverman: I am very much obliged. We now know that there is one Lancashire Member who does not agree that Purchase Tax should come off textiles—
    Mr. Horobin: Now.
    Mr. Silverman: —now, and there is another Lancashire Member who agrees that Purchase Tax should come off now, although he thinks it great nonsense. All the other Lancashire Members are in favour of taking it off now and taking it off completely; and they think it a very good thing to do.
    Mr. Harold Davies(Leek): Why only Lancashire? Staffordshire, too.
    Mr. Silverman: If that is so, this places a very great responsibility upon the Lancashire Members sitting on the Government side, because if they wish they can have their way. Nothing prevents the removal of Purchase Tax altogether from textile goods except the unwillingness of Lancashire Conservative Members, who believe it ought to happen, to vote for it.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne(Louth): Does the hon. Gentleman think, and this is a serious question, that if Purchase Tax were taken off textiles it would materially increase their sales? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] My own experience in one branch of textiles is that the cheaper stock is offered at the present time the less readiness there is on the part of the public to purchase. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about this issue. I am asking to what extent the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne thinks there would be an increase in the sale of textiles if Purchase Tax were taken off. May I ask him another question?
    Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Member is quick?
    Mr. Osborne: Does he not agree that he is exaggerating this in view of the statement in the United Nations Economic Report recently issued where, on page 25, it says:
    "The solution of the Western European textile crisis is very closely connected with the outlook for world trade in textiles and Europe's competitive position in the world market."
    Does not that affect his point of view at all?
    Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member will recall what I said earlier in my speech
    684
    about long-term constructive remedies for the textile depression, and he will not expect me to return to it.
    With regard to his question about the effect of removing the Purchase Tax from textiles, I would tell him that not only I but, as we have seen, all Lancashire Members and many Yorkshire Members and Staffordshire Members—with only one exception so far—believe that if we took off the Purchase Tax on textiles now we would immediately increase the home consumption of textiles. This would serve to help the clearance of stock and to get the mills working again—I do not say wholly, but to a significant extent.
    The hon. Gentleman's argument that it is better to raise the price in order to increase consumption may be true. I found it rather an original suggestion. I am surprised that there is no Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member to double Purchase Tax on all these articles.
    Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member is very clever at twisting words. I did not say—and it will be seen in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow—that there should be an increase in the tax. I challenge hon. Members to go to their own tradespeople and make inquiries. Stocks are being offered in the textile industry today at below production costs, and they cannot be moved. I know, because I am trying to sell them. It is scandalous that the hon. Member, who is perhaps the cleverest man at twisting words, should do it in a way like this.
    Mr. Silverman: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should be so indignant. I do not think that I twisted his words. He has himself just repeated the words to which he objected in my paraphrase of what he had to say. What he is objecting to is the inference which I draw from what he said. He thinks that that is unjustifiable, but I am not greatly distressed about that. I have spent all the years that I have spent in the House hearing hon. Members in the hon. Gentleman's party stumbling across great truths and then picking themselves up and going on as if nothing had happened.
    It is perfectly true, as he said, that there are a great many goods which cannot be sold now. It is true that there are many goods which we cannot sell even at prices which are below cost. What

    685
    I suggest to him, as a much better business man than I am, is that this is a proof that it is not wise to raise the prices which now obtain. I should not have thought that that was twisting anything. The hon. Gentleman is most anxious to he a good business man when he is in his office and to be a good Conservative when he comes down to support the Government, but he finds that the two functions do not fit.
    Mr. Osborne: By being a good business man in my office I am producing the goods which the Chancellor wants to keep the Welfare State going.
    Mr. Silverman: I am sure that that is very good of him. What I am trying to do, in company with virtually all the textile Members, is exactly the same thing.
    Perhaps now I can come back to the point. The hon. Gentleman was most skilful in keeping me off it for so long. The point is that, since all the textile Members agree that Purchase Tax ought to come off, if they had the courage to stand by what they believe in, Purchase Tax on textiles can come off tonight. It will not take many of them. As I worked out the arithmetic, I think that it requires hardly any more than the number of righteous men who were not found to save Sodom and Gomorrah. I think in that case 10 good men were needed. Out obligation is greater. We need not 10 good men from among the Tory Members: we need 11. Is it too much to ask?
    10.0 p.m.
    If right hon. and hon. Members opposite had any doubt about the effectiveness of this Measure, if they had any doubt about its practicality, or even about its moral validity, if they had any reason whatever for questioning the rightness of the steps we are proposing, the matter would be different, but they have agreed already—all of them, and there are enough of them to, make it effective—that this is the right thing to do. If it is not done, the responsibility will be theirs, and theirs alone.
    I can tell them how to do it. I have been in that position myself in other days, and so have other hon. Members.
    Mr. David Ormsby-Gore (Oswestry): The hon. Gentleman did not do that to try to prevent the re-armament programme being put through last year.
    Mr. Silverman: It would have required far more than 11 righteous people to stop that one. We are not asking hon. Members opposite to do anything as heroic as that.
    We are only asking that 11 of them shall vote for what they believe in on what, after all, is a minor administrative matter. No more than that. They would not even have to vote. It would not need so much courage as is needed to vote against their Government, especially when it has such a narrow majority; they would not stand it for a minute.
    Let 11 Conservative Members tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of this debate that, unless he gives way on this issue, they will go into the Division Lobby with their comrades on this side of the Committee. Let us, at least, be fellow-travellers. We are not asking them to travel very far, or to keep company with us for very long.
    We are not asking them to do any violence to their convictions or consciences. We are saying to them: "Do not be deterred from voting for what you believe in merely because the Labour Party does so too." No more
    than that. Or: "Do not be deterred from voting for what you believe in merely because you are afraid you might win."
    We understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister does not want to go to the country yet. If the Government were to be defeated on this issue, as it is a finance matter, after all, they would have to resign. There would have to be a General Election. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) is in a stronger position than he has ever been in his life. He only has to get his comrades from Lancashire to support him. Why in the world Lancashire ever gave him any comrades I cannot understand, but they will never do it again.
    However, he has got them now and, with that power, he could go to the Chancellor at this moment and say, "Lancashire needs this thing to be done." The right hon. Gentleman believes that Lancashire believes it ought to be done, and he knows that if he went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and said, "I believe that Lancashire needs to have

    687
    the Purchase Tax lifted now from textiles, and, whatever you say about it, I will vote for it tonight," the Chancellor would have to give way.
    Mr. Assheton: It cannot have escaped the astute mind of the hon. Gentleman that to vote against this Clause would not have that effect at all. All that voting against this Clause would do would be to do away with the D scheme altogether and to put us back where we were before, which hon. Members opposite recognise would be a worse position.
    Mr. Silverman: I do not think that is quite worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. We are not concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well and as his speech showed that he knows very well, with the niceties of the particular wording of the particular Clause. He made his contribution to this debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," asking for exactly the same thing as I am asking. If he thought it was worthwhile to make his request for the removal of Purchase Tax from textiles in the context of the debate on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," then it is equally relevant when it comes to a vote as it was when he made his speech. He has been long enough in the House to know that I am right about that, and I am sure he would not contest it for a moment.
    I say again that all he has to do is to tell the Chancellor that this thing has to be done, that his colleagues from Lancashire think so too, and that they are going to act with him, and the thing would be done. What would be lost if it were done? In the right hon. Gentleman's opinion nothing would be lost and a good deal would be gained. Not everything would be gained, of course, and I do not want to exaggerate that matter, but a great immediate alleviation of a tragic position would be effected within days, and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues know it very well. If they do not do it, then all their speeches are so much vainglorious vote catching, and they will be denouncing themselves to their own constituents as humbugs.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher (Bury and Radcliffe): The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will fail in his effort to tempt me either to join him
    688
    and his colleagues in the short honeymoon that he is suggesting or to follow him in the very interesting lesson in doubtful tactics he wishes to give us. The truth is—and I think that he and his companions know it well—that this matter has to be regarded, as he said in the short debate the other day, in the context of the whole Budget.
    Has he asked himself, not the 64 dollar question, but the 64 million dollar question, whether, by voting for something which some of us may or may not believe to be a good short-term remedy, we should be shaking the foundations of the whole of the Budget which the Chancellor has presented?
    Mrs. Castle: Would the hon. Gentleman do the useful act of asking his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), that question, because he has been asking for the same thing for which my hon. Friend asked?
    Mr. Fletcher: I think I must retain the choice as to where I ask the question.
    The hon. Gentleman has had a magnificent exercise, a wonderful gallop, along the rather zigzag course he always pursues, even when he thinks it is a straight one, but he has not asked himself the final, serious question on this matter.
    It is really a matter of outside confidence in the firmness of the Chancellor in putting over a Budget which has undoubtedly restored to a very great extent confidence in our determination to put things right. Every part of this country can put forward for some local industry a special plea with great force, backing it up with figures and making it quite clear that the case for a small section, as it is, of our whole industrial life, is a very good one.
    Mr. S. Silverman: If the hon. Member will allow me. I shall endeavour to go along a path which even the hon. Member would deem to be a straight one, I hope —if he is capable of knowing what is straight and what is not. Does the hon. Member know of any other industry which is suffering as the textile industry is now suffering? Is there any other industry with the same level of unemployment? Is there any other industry so important to our export trade?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am quite willing to concede to the hon. Member that he is

    689
    correct in saying that Lancashire is being much harder hit than almost anywhere. I know it for exactly the same reason as he does—that I happen to represent an industrial constituency in Lancashire and have done so for a few years. It is because of that that I take this point possibly rather more seriously than he does. It is not easy, when one's constituents are anxious day and night, and quite rightly, when one knows that hon. Members on all sides are looking for every sort of immediate alleviation we can possibly afford, to sit back and try to think objectively of what the total result will be of a concession which can be argued with great force.
    Mr. Silverman: Can the hon. Member then explain why, only a few weeks ago, he put a Motion on the Order Paper asking for this very thing?
    Mr. Fletcher: I can explain it with the greatest of ease.
    Mr. Silverman: Because the hon. Member does not mean it.
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member may be content with that. It is entirely worthy of him that he should answer himself and nobody else.
    It is a very difficult task to be objective if one is dead honest with oneself on an occasion like this. One knows perfectly well the real suffering that must follow from the continuation of the slump in Lancashire. If any means can be found it is the duty of any hon. Member of the constituency concerned to go into them very carefully and urge them upon the Government in this Chamber and elsewhere. But the final duty of the Member is not necessarily that. It is to ask himself, as I have done and as I do now, where is the long-term and real interest of the constituents whom he has the honour to represent. He must ask, "What course must I steer to achieve the greatest effect?"
    It is so easy, and so cheaply easy, to taunt, in the way the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has done, my hon. Friends on this side. I make him a present of every single forensic triumph and every single turn and twist he can take to make me and my hon. Friends on this side appear-as we may well be appearing at this
    690
    moment—very ridiculous. I am willing to take that and to say to him and to hon. Members opposite, with whatever reputation I have had for putting things straight in the years I have been in the House of Commons, that it is a wrong action at this juncture to make the sort of speech the hon. Member has just made.
    Mr. Harold Davies: What is wrong with it?
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Fletcher: It is wrong if every section of the community—the textile section and other sections which, in the aggregate, are just as important though, individually, they may not be so—takes that line and uses its power through us, which we undoubtedly possess as back benchers, to force the hand of the Government. If we all use it, what must be the effect on people outside this country whose confidence in us has been restored?
    I believe that we are in for a much worse time in the textile industry in some ways, though for a much shorter time. We may have a fall in the market—an expression which has been used with some frequency. But we shall find that, in effect, the world's resources will come into play reasonably soon. We are now a platform on which the restoration of the textile industry can be built, but it can only be built if there is confidence that the Government will remain firm in protecting the value of the currency. One thing that will deter people overseas from buying textiles and delay the recovery of the textile industry is to shake that confidence.
    I should like to reaffirm in all seriousness, as a Lancashire Member, that the easy way, the way which would give the easier relief and which would make us more popular in our constituencies, is the wrong way. I believe, therefore, that we should hope for a reasonable amount of concession, but that we should not take the advice of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, which was flung so lightly into the arena, and take action which can only shake the confidence of the world in the Government and, through them, in this country. On that depends the future of Lancashire more than anything else.
    Mr. S. Silverman: What did the hon. Gentleman mean when he referred in his closing sentences to the wrong course? Is he now saying that to remove the Purchase Tax from textiles would be the wrong course?
    Mr. Fletcher: It is a question of the short-term advantage against the possible long-term catastrophe.
    Mr. D. Brook: My contribution to this debate arises out of the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) referred to the question of confidence in this Government. The right hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) referred to the harm that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) had done to the textile industry by the advice which he had given. I want to put it on record that the present Chancellor has done more harm to the textile industry in the last month than anybody else. He has done it by destroying confidence in the textile industry.
    The right hon. Gentleman said in his Second Reading speech that if all the retailers and wholesalers in this country would refrain from buying and putting into stock for a period, he would offer them a reward. He said, in effect, that on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill he would give consideration to specific items in the schedules of the D scheme. He was encouraging retailers to refrain from buying because they knew that if they did buy, any Purchase Tax which they had paid would be so much dead loss to them if there were any revision of the scheme.
    I should like to give examples that I have come across in the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire. A blanket manufacturer friend of mine told me a month ago of this state of affairs in the blanket industry. He said that when a customer went to retail shop-keepers in a big way of business, instead of buying as they usually did 100 or 200 pairs of blankets, they said, "We have no stock of blankets in the shop, but we will order you a pair." Blanket manufacturers and others are now finding that instead of getting bulk orders from their customers they are getting orders piecemeal. The reason for that is due solely to the uncertainty of the position in relation to Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Burden: That is symptomatic of changing conditions. It is symptomatic of conditions where shopkeepers carry smaller stocks, and the first blow struck against shops continuing to carry heavy stocks was struck by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who advised the public not to buy.
    Mr. Brook: If the hon. Member had some knowledge of the textile industry he would realise that the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland was in entirely different circumstances from those which exist today. The advice given by the Chancellor was in relation to a situation of which I have personal knowledge.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I respect the sincerity of the hon. Member, but I gave no advice. I simply maintained the rights of hon. Members and said that not to consider Amendments in the Committee stage of a Finance Bill would be an impossible position for any Government or any Chancellor of the Exchequer and would strike at the basis of the British Constitution.
    Mr. Brook: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of his dilemma in that way. I am not talking about the advice he gave, but the action he took. He was offering them a reward for refusing to purchase. If he had known his own mind he would have realised that it would have been far better from the point of view of the textile industry if he had refused to consider any Amendments to the Schedule. The fact that he did not know his mind must inevitable result in shopkeepers refusing to carry stocks because of the knowledge they have.
    The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland in relation to the position of the textile industry. Part of the problem is the great difficulty of making the necessary adjustments as a result of the tremendous drop in the value of wool. The advice which my right hon. Friend gave was to that effect. The retail shopkeepers in many cases have not adjusted themselves to that position. My main purpose in taking part in this debate was simply to point out to the Committee that the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, due to the uncertainty which he has created in the

    693
    industry, has aggravated rather than eased the tension of the wool and cotton industry.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles (Down, North): I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) with regard to taxation. I am against any form of taxation—P.A.Y.E., Purchase Tax, petrol tax—any tax one likes to mention. But the Chancellor must have some money to keep the country running and also to save the British pound, which he has managed to do during the time that he has been in office.
    A year or two ago we were all advising our friends to "Buy now." Whether it was a sheet, a blanket, or a bicycle, the advice was "Buy now. It is going up in price." We do not give the same advice today because the British £ has been saved and prices have gone down. It hurts a lot of us, but we have to grin and bear it because we have to save our currency. But I thought it a bit hard when the Minister of State for Economic Affairs said, "I am a Lancashire Member. I have studied very carefully the textile industry—wool and cotton." It reminded me of the notices we used to see outside hospitals—" Mother and child both doing well"; but not a single word about poor old father. What about the linen industry—the oldest textile industry in the world? I understand that when they opened the tomb of Tutankhamen in Egypt they found a piece of linen 4,000 or 5,000 years old. That is the textile fabric which my right hon. Friend has forgotten tonight.
    Only a week ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said we could get all the dollars we wanted if we had one-third of 1 per cent. of the total trade of the United States. The Northern Ireland linen trade is one of the best exporters to the United States today, but I was very glad, Mr. Bowles, when your predecessor in the Chair said we must not go into the different schedules and prices and details tonight. I was glad because this afternoon I was in the Lobby with three linen manufacturers and they left me with my head reeling with figures about linen trades, furnishing and fabrics. I simply cannot remember them all tonight.
    The Douglas scheme has hit the linen industry very hard. The finest quality woollen blanket, dyed a delicate shade
    694
    and bound with satin, is entirely Purchase Tax free, or D tax free. I do not know who buys blankets like that. I have never seen them. Possibly they are bought by the film magnates or film stars of Hollywood. In any event, not a single linen sheet is free of tax—and the film magnate and the film star have to have sheets as well as blankets. Not a single sheet of the lowest possible quality is free of tax, and I think that is a bit below the belt.
    We cannot have a great export industry without at the same time having the cushion of the home trade. We want to be able to see these goods in Bond Street or Deansgate, in Manchester. I suppose that it is a case of what Manchester thinks or buys today, the United States will buy tomorrow. After all, we must try it on the dog. It is no good manufacturing entirely for the export trade. We must show the goods in the shops at home.
    It is quite unfair to fix the lowest level of the D scheme far higher than the price at which linen sheets or tablecloths or fancy goods are made. When we discuss the Schedule, I hope to have an opportunity of moving some Amendments on the subject.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Why is it, then, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Northern Ireland friends have not tabled a single Amendment to the Schedule in respect of linen?
    Sir W. Smiles: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, because I have put down Amendments and—
    The Chairman: Order. We cannot discuss the Schedule before we come to it.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock): I was very interested to learn that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles) is against taxation. I look forward to watching exactly into which Lobby he will go when the decision is taken on the Question that the Clause stand part.
    Mr. Sydney Marshall (Sutton and Cheam):It will not be the hon. Gentleman's Lobby.
    Mr. Ross: I wonder where the hon. and gallant Member for Down, North gets the idea that woollen blankets were

    695
    to be tax free? In the Schedule appropriate to this subject, he will find that blankets—and may I say here that the best blankets come from
    Ayrshire?—beyond 14s. 6d. a square yard will have to bear Purchase Tax. The only thing, so far as I can see, which he missed out, was one linen article; but evidently that is not marked, "Made in Northern Ireland."
    I do not question that the Douglas Report was a sincere effort to analyse the difficulties and anomalies of the old Utility scheme within the terms of reference laid down; but the thing which the Financial Secretary, and the gentlemen at the Treasury have to remember, is that the Douglas Committee was set up in July of last year and that we are passing judgment on its Report in May of this year. I say that because entirely new considerations must come into our judgment, for the situation has changed very, very much; so much, that consideration of the Douglas Report is now quite academic.
    It is all very well for the Minister of State for Economic Affairs to talk about goods which do not bear tax remaining in the shops, unsold, and to say that the tax had little relation to the depression. What we are considering is how to lift that depression, and putting a tax on those goods which have until now been tax free, will not only not help the situation, but will aggravate an already unhealthy position. Consumer considerations were within the terms of the Douglas Committee, but those considerations would have a far greater weight now than in July, 1951.
    There is a lot of talk of keeping down the cost of living, and it is strange, surely, that one of the other planks of the Chancellor's Budget will be deliberately to increase the cost of living for millions of families; because the spread of this taxation, over a wide range of goods, will have immediate effects. The fact is that 90 per cent. of the sheets, and 70 per cent. of the domestic towels bought by ordinary householders were tax free; but are not now.
    Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Member admit that, in the terms of reference to the Douglas Committee, it was laid down that any scheme put out must take into
    696
    consideration that the revenue received from merchandise must be the same as obtained under the Utility scheme?
    Mr. Ross: I think I said at the beginning of my remarks that the time when we are passing judgment is very different from the time when the Douglas Committee was set up; but if the hon. Gentleman claims that the recommendations of any Committee set up must be followed, then I would reply that the mines would have been nationalised in 1921. When we come to other matters, I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in view of his interjection, will give us his support.
    Quite rightly, emphasis has been put on textiles; but let us leave aside textiles, and turn to footwear. We find that, under the old Utility scheme, 98 per cent. of the boots and shoes—practically every pair bought in this country apart from those hand-made—were free of Purchase Tax. Now, for the first time, we are to have Purchase Tax not only on the better quality but on the medium quality boots and shoes which people have been buying. There are thousands of workers in Kilmarnock who are very much concerned about the fate of this Clause and the D scheme.
    The D level has been selected by the Chancellor in conjunction, I dare say, with the President of the Board of Trade. The Government are deliberately forcing up the price of boots and shoes. Boots and shoes will be dearer. The people of the Irvine Valley who work in lace manufacture, a vital part of the textile industry, are being laid off work. Someone said something about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) stopping people from buying. If he will go to the Irvine Valley he will find that the people are very much more concerned about the fact that the people in Australia are stopping buying, and it certainly was not a member of the Opposition Front Bench who advised the Australians to stop buying British goods.
    People are falling out of work. How will they be in a position to buy the goods being made in another part of my constituency, the prices of which are being increased? How will those employed in the boot and shoe industry be able to help the industry making curtains or the hosiery industry of Kilmarnock and

    697
    Central Ayrshire? This problem is not confined to Lancashire. The cloth manufacturing area of Kilmarnock and that part of Glasgow represented by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) is in a desperate position. The responsibility on the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very much heavier than one would gather from the speech made by the Minister of State for Economic Affairs.
    I sincerely hope that we shall get a prompt decision in this matter. The continued delay is aggravating the position. Millions of people are convinced that something must be done quickly to bring down the price of these goods, because there is a buying strike at present. Whatever the Chancellor proposes to do he must act quickly.
    I have been interested to note since the Budget how hon. Members opposite have urged us to face the grim facts. They have all become apostles of realism. I remember what the Minister of Agriculture said when farm prices were increased. It was said that something must be done to create a more realistic view about the cost of food, so the subsidy was taken away and the cost was passed on to the consumer. I remember that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), has been preaching for years, "Away with subsidies."
    If this realism is right and if it is right to take away subsidies to get at the true price of an article, then equally it is right to take away Purchase Tax to get at the true price of an article. The true prices are being shrouded by Purchase Tax. If we are to face realities let us face them; and let us face those of unemployment, depression, the needs of the consumer and industry, by wiping out Purchase Tax
    altogether.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am sure that we have been very much moved by the sincerity brought into this debate, which has now lasted for three and a half hours, and if we are to maintain our reputation as a Committee on the Finance Bill, we should now try to come to a decision on this Clause, because we have two other Clauses and a number of Schedules which will give the appropriate opportunity to the Government or anybody else for a detailed consideration of this matter.
    I am most anxious that, during the two days next week—or whatever time we have then—we shall, without undue
    698
    physical labour, deal with the detailed representations made to us by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Therefore, I think it is reasonable that we should try to reach a decision on this single Clause, which is not one of the most vital Clauses in the Bill, and which is not one of the vital ones concerning Purchase Tax. I believed that one speech from this Front Bench would have been sufficient, but, if the Committee thinks it right, it might be reasonable for me to make a few observations.
    It is remarkable that we have had no speech from the Front Bench opposite.
    Mr. Gaitskell (Leeds, South): The right hon. Gentleman will get it.
    Mr. Butler: It is remarkable that in a debate lasting three and a half hours no statement should be made officially from the Opposition Front Bench. That shows what they think of this Clause, and of the debate. We have not had any explanation of what they want, and I am at a loss to know what it is. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), is to be sympathised with more than usually, because he sits for a particularly distressed town in Lancashire, which, on my close examination, has not been able to profit by some of the measures we have been able to introduce. He said it had been laid down that the objective was to remove Purchase Tax on textiles. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said:
    "…nothing short of the complete abolition of the tax will suffice in the present desperate situation."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 29th April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 1349.]
    Is that the argument developing on this Clause? If it is I will deal with it quite shortly.
    If it is the argument there is a point which the Committee must get hold of, and it is that it is really impossible to differentiate in this matter between the textile portion of the tax and the other sections of the D scheme. There have been some speakers, including the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who spoke last, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) who have referred to boots and shoes, but in my opinion, it is, as I have just said, impossible to differentiate as between one section of the D scheme and the rest. Therefore, I am forced to

    699
    the conclusion that the sum of between £80 million and £100 million—that is about one—third of the whole Purchase Tax—is at stake.
    The courageous and straightforward speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) represents the truth of this matter, and I hope it will be read and listened to in the Lancashire towns just as much as some of the extreme speeches made from the other side of the Committee. If I were to take action tonight to surrender voluntarily about £100 million of revenue in answer to a debate of this sort without a wide examination of the tax schedules, and the detailed points put forward by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, I should, I think, be grossly irresponsible as Chancellor of the Exchequer. At any rate, I do not propose to do it under any pressure whatever. That deals with the first point.
    I have listened to nearly all the three hours of this debate, and the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), speaking earlier, poked fun at my alleged honesty. I can only say that in similar circumstances the honesty of one of my distinguished predecessors—Sir Stafford Cripps—was impugned, and that not only did he ignore such taunts, but his reputation has survived in the minds of us all as a man who did his best. I cannot aspire to the moral heights of his character, but I have tried to act absolutely honestly in this matter.
    10.45 p.m.
    What was the position I inherited? The Government and I inherited the report by the Douglas Committee, which was designed to meet one of our most important difficulties in the sphere of international trade. As I said in my Budget speech, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the previous President of the Board of Trade acknowledged that it was necessary for the sake of our international obligations not to continue a system in this country whereby we laid a tax on imports of certain foreign goods without an equivalent excise on similar internal goods. It was, therefore necessary to adjust the general scheme of Utility under the purchase tax and the imposition of Purchase Tax as well. As the Douglas Committee said:
    "We have, therefore, taken as our starting point the over-riding need to propose a solu
    700
    tion which will enable the Government fully to carry out the undertaking given at Geneva in September, 1951."
    This, then, is the second main point. Is it the intention of the Opposition to challenge the fact that some alteration was necessary on the lines of the D scheme to fulfil our international obligations? My first question was whether they propose to push away £100 million of revenue. Having answered that, do they propose not to carry out our international obligations? In facing up to our international obligations, what scheme can we adopt? Does anybody in the Committee imagine any Chancellor has welcomed putting into the Bill Clauses and Schedules of this intense complexity, exposing so much for comment and attack? It is an absolute gift to the Opposition, of which they are taking full advantage at every moment, in a most petty manner, to make us look as ridiculous as possible. I maintain that we are morally bound to a scheme of this sort.
    The point arises that, even if it is accepted that we have inherited the Douglas Committee scheme, the need for a scheme of this sort, and an obligation to fulfil these international treaties—and there are more than the September, 1951, Geneva declaration—nevertheless, at the same time, it was our responsibility to fix the D levels. All I can say is that in fixing the D's we have been guided by paragraph 101 of the Douglas Committee Report, in which they recommend fixing the D would be by reference to the median price. That is precisely what we have done.
    At least, it has not been done by us, but by our advisors, and in the most scientific and careful way. Much of the work was done in the period when we had just assumed office. Through the Social Survey a most careful investigation was made to fix the median price for these commodities, articles, goods and everything else.
    I do not say that the result is entirely successful, but we shall have to consider details when we come to the Schedules. That is why this debate must be general and I cannot make any particular observations either for the trades or the Committee. I maintain that this work was carefully done, without the slightest contact with any politics or even Ministerial contact, but Ministers have

    701
    taken full responsibility for it—and I believe it was done fairly. Where there have been mistakes, let us examine them on the Schedules, to which I hope we shall come as early as possible. I am not prepared to sacrifice the amount of revenue to the extent I have described. I do not think it would solve the problem; indeed, I believe it would undermine the Budget and our financial solvency.
    I am not prepared to consider in detail, indeed, until we come to the Schedule which we are advancing—a particular manoeuvre adopted on purpose, with the agreement of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, so that we can consider them in the same sort of debate when it is resumed next week—I am not I say prepared to consider till then the detailed D's. Also I am not prepared to give way to the Opposition when they try to make us give up this scheme, that would leave us in a position which, I consider, would be contrary to our international obligations and which it would not be sound for this country to adopt.
    If we do not pass this Clause—and we have had no guidance from the Opposition Front Bench—we go back to the position in which we shall not be fulfilling our international obligations and in which an attempt is made to recreate the old Utility scheme. That Utility position cannot be restored.
    Let me take up the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Huyton. He has stated that this is a deliberate attempt to redistribute income in the interests of the rich against the poor. That is not the opinion of the Douglas Committee, whose advice we have followed in detail in this matter. That Committee was appointed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    It says, in paragraph 119—and this is a direct answer to the right hon. Gentleman:
    "It does not follow that there would be any transference of the burden from one individual to another since many people who can afford top quality Utility goods also buy some non-Utility goods. We have already expressed our opinion that, in a number of cases, the Utility exemptions extend far beyond the essential needs of the lower income groups. If, as we recommend, the opportunity were taken to remove certain anomalies, such as the tax on table oilcloth, plastic sheeting and rubber footwear, it might well improve the position of the poorest sections of the community."
    702
    That is exactly the plan we have followed. We have brought into this scheme certain articles which now get tax exemption and did not get them under the administration of the party opposite, and we have, in fact, kept the large range of purchases that the poorer section of the community want to make free of tax under this scheme.
    Therefore, we have tried to be fair, and that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton. We have been as fair and impartial as possible and we shall try to fufil our international obligations.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that he was not sure what our objectives were in discussing this Clause. I should have thought that in view of the fact that the question of Purchase Tax in relation to the textile industries has been discussed in the House on more than one occasion recently he would really not have been in any doubt about the attitude of the Opposition. As for his complaint that no Front Bench spokesman has so far taken part in the debate, it is perfectly within our rights, especially in a debate on Clause stand part, to wait until the Opposition Front Bench spokesman has finished. [Laughter.] I beg pardon; I meant until the Government Front Bench spokesman has finished.
    I agree that the Minister of State for Economic Affairs spoke a little earlier, and had he made a contribution that was relevant and fair I might, perhaps, have intervened earlier. I am sorry to have to tell him that it was not one of his best efforts, and it seemed to leave all of us in a complete fog about what the Government really wanted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put the matter rather more clearly and I think we now understand what the Government really are after.
    The objectives we have are perfectly simple. We think that in present circumstances the Purchase Tax should be taken off the textile products. If the Chancellor will not do that, we think the value of D should all along the line be raised as high as possible, in particular to a level which secures that there will be no increased tax on any article, and no tax imposed on articles which hitherto were exempt from taxation.
    I think the Chancellor will probably agree that in making up our minds on

    703
    this important issue we had to take into consideration four different possible consequences. First, there is the international obligations; second, the cost of living; third, the revenue aspect; and, fourth, the condition of the industries affected, and I propose to say a few words about each of those. As to the international obligations, we accept that there is an international obligation; there is no dispute about that. My right hon. and hon. Friends have previously on a number of occasions made our position quite clear. We recognised that we had to do something to remove the discrimination about which complaints were made by foreign countries as a result of the previous arrangement. That is not in dispute at all.
    But that does not mean that therefore everything that is suggested in the Douglas Committee Report must be accepted—of course not. After all, there are at least two other ways than the ways recommended by the Government by which one could fulfil the international obligations without getting into the difficulties into which the Government are getting. Those are, first, the removal of the tax altogether—that would satisfy the foreign complainants all right, there would be no difficulty at all about that. Second, we could fix the level wherever we liked. It could be as high as we liked and it would be perfectly satisfactory to foreign countries.
    Now I turn to the cost of living argument and I must say that I think the Chancellor's defence of the effects of this new scheme with the level of D's proposed in the Bill extraordinarily weak. It really cannot be denied that there is a redistribution involved in this scheme. After all, we were levying tax over the whole range of non-Utility articles equivalent to 33⅓ per cent, that is, one-third of the value in each case. That came off every non-Utility article, however cheap or expensive it was. Now, we are imposing taxation on a large range of Utility articles. We get one of the worst cases of this, as one hon. Friend said, in the case of boots and shoes. Does the Chancellor really say there is no additional burden imposed on consumers of boots and shoes in this, when 98 per cent. of the industry was previously free of tax altogether, and now about 50 per cent. of it is to be taxed?
    704
    Of course, there is bound to be an additional burden.
    Mr. Butler: I did say—and I was respecting a previous Ruling of the Chair—that if we go into more detail on some of the more difficult classes, like boots and shoes, furnishing fabrics and fur gloves and other things, I would be out of order.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I, too, remember the Ruling and I was not going into detail, but the Chancellor has made a completely "phoney" generalisation about this. We shall certainly continue to pull it to pieces in the course of the debates next week, but I must say just this, that there is really no basis in it whatever. The fact is that it does involve a redistribution. Hon. Members opposite know that perfectly well. They may say that it is not a very big one, but it is a redistribution and it does add to the cost of living of the working class and they cannot get away from that.
    Let us turn to the revenue question. The Chancellor says he cannot afford to lose the revenue and other hon. Members say that the Committee were obliged to consider only schemes where there was no loss to the Revenue. I want to make it clear that it was never our view that it was the duty of the Douglas Committee to decide Revenue matters at all and that was why that particular condition was put in the terms of reference. The Chancellor may agree with me that in appointing a committee it is always rather a wise thing to say that they must leave revenue and get on with the rest of it. Otherwise, the committee will almost certainly report in favour of heavy reductions in taxation which may not be possible. I say that that was not a matter which they were asked to inquire into and the Chancellor must accept full responsibility himself.
    11.0 p.m.
    The Chancellor says that he cannot afford to meet our request. I must repeat an argument which I used on an earlier occasion. The real point is that the textile industries throughout the world are very depressed at the moment. There are some remedies which, because they are external, it is very difficult for us to apply. It is natural that we should tend to concentrate on things which can be done by the Government, one of which is to lift the burden of taxation. That

    705
    cannot be questioned by anyone, unless the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) still believes that that would induce people to buy less, rather than more.
    I do not think he was really serious in that argument, and will not press him further. It will be interesting to see whether that is the case where there are proposals to reduce the tax on individual items. Apart from the hon. Member for Louth, I believe that everyone agrees on what the position is. In those circumstances, it is our view that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he has to have the same amount of revenue he ought not to have given so much away in general reliefs on Income Tax, particularly on the higher incomes, but should have concentrated relief on this spot, so as to raise consumption of textiles. That is a logical argument.
    What was the purpose of relief of taxation? It was in essence an anti-deflationary measure. We want an anti-deflationary measure at a particular point in our economy so that it affects our industries. Therefore, we cannot accept the view that, because there is a loss of revenue, the Chancellor cannot stand it. He can still, at this stage, introduce a new Money Resolution and modify the Income Tax Clauses so that he does not give away £50,000,000 to those who are getting more than £1,000 a year. We will give him every consideration if he is prepared to do this.
    Mr. Osborne: If it is being argued that even if the Chancellor gave relief to the smaller income groups that money would be spent in the purchase of textiles, that cannot be proved.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Gentleman seems to be getting sleepy—I was arguing exactly the opposite—or else, perhaps, that is the argument which the Chancellor must have had in mind. But it is not the one I have. To restore the demand for textiles the Chancellor must give relief of taxation on textiles.
    Now I come, finally, to the condition of the industry. There is no doubt in
    any part of the Committee about how serious this is. The argument which has been brought forward in relation to removal of the tax, that it is not going to solve the whole problem, is irrelevant. It is not going to solve the whole problem. But is that a reason for not doing something about it? Are we going to find it so easy to solve this problem that we can afford to neglect any remedy?
    Even if it is the case that parts of the industry which produce articles which have been free from tax are also depressed that is no reason for maintaining the tax on those parts of the industry which have been subject to the tax and are depressed. Furnishing fabrics are particularly depressed and are subject to heavy taxation. As for the argument that if the tax is removed it must be removed for ever, that is not worth serious consideration. No Chancellor of the Exchequer can do that. We do not ask for that. I do not agree with the Minister of State for Economic Affairs that the industry is against anything but that. Of course, it was against what he said, namely, a Purchase Tax holiday with a specific date. That would be a foolish thing. I spoke to members of the industry when I was in Manchester, and when I explained our proposals they took a favourable view of them.
    The case is an overwhelming one, and we are extremely disappointed with the Chancellor's attitude. I wish we could persuade those hon. Members who represent Lancashire constituencies—who, I know, share our view, whatever they may say—to have the courage to tell the Chancellor that they will come into the Division Lobby with us. If they did that we would achieve our objective, and would get rid of the Purchase Tax on textiles. There is still, of course, a chance for them to do this because we shall now most certainly divide on the Clause.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 204.

    Division No.118.]

    AYES

    [11.7 p.m.

    Aitken, W.T.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Baxter, A.B.

    Allan, R.A (Paddington, s.)

    Astor, Hon. J.J (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Alport, C.J.M.

    Astor, Hon. W.W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

    Beamish, Maj, Tufton

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J.M.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Baldwin, A.E.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Bennett, F.M. (Reading. N.)

    Ashton H. (Chelmsford)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Birch, Nigel

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Orr-Ewing, Ian L.(Weston-super-Mare)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Heath, Edward

    Osborne, C.

    Black, C. W.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Partridge, E.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Peake, Rt. Hon. 0

    Bowen, E. R.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Peto, Brig, C. H. M

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hollis, M. C.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Braine, B. R.

    Hope, Lord John

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

    Horobin, I. M.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Buchan-Hepburn,Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Redmayne, E.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W.

    Robson Brown, W.

    Channon, H.

    Kaberry, D.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Russell, R. S.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth. W.)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Cole, Norman

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Shepherd, William

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T

    Smyth, Brig. J. G (Norwood)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Storey, S.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Low, A. R. W.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Summers, G. S

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Douglas—Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Teeling, W.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Drewe, C.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Thorneycroft, R Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Duthie, W. S.

    MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Tilney, John

    Erroll, F. J.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Turner, H. F. L

    Fell, A.

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Turton, R. H

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Vane, W M. F

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J K

    Fort, R.

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Vosper, D F.

    Foster, John

    Maude, Angus

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Maudling, R.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Gage, C. H.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Gower, H. R.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Wellwood, W.

    Grimond, J.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nicholls, Harmer

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Williams, R Dudley (Exeter)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Wills, G.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Wood, Hon R.

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    York, C

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)

    Hay, John

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Benson, G.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Adams, Richard

    Beswick, F.

    Burke, W. A.

    Albu, A. H.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Burton, Miss F. E

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Blackburn, F.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Boardman, H.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Champion, A. J.

    Baird, J.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Chapman, W. D

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

    Brockway, A. F.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Broughton, Dr. A D. D.

    Coldrick, W.

    708

    709

    Collick, P. H.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Richards, R.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Rebens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Janner, B.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Daines, P.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Ross, William

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Royle, C.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Kenyon, C.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon Sir Hattie.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Silverman,Julius (Erdington)

    Deer, G.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lee, Miss Jennie(Cannock)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Snow, J. W

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Edelman, M.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McLeavy, F.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon.H.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon E

    Fernyhough,E.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Field, W. J.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E)

    Sylvester, G. 0.

    Fienburgh,W

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Finch, H J

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mellish, R. J

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Follick, M.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Foot, M. M

    Mitchison. G R

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Moody, A. S.

    Tomney, F

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Morgan, Dr H. B W

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Morley, R.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Gooch, E. G.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Usborne, H. C.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham. S)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Moyle, A.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

    Nally, W.

    Weitzman, D.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J

    West, D. G.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Orbach, M.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Oswald, T.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Hastings, S.

    Padley, W. E

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Paget, R. T.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Pannell, Charles

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery).

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Parker, J.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Paton, J.

    Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Holman, P.

    Pearl, T. F.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Yates, V. F.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Younger, Rt. Hon K

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Rhodes, H.

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Horace Holmes

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I rise to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his intentions are. I think he will agree that although we have had quite a long debate on the Question that Clause 7 stand part, it was a good debate and it was, in fact, the only general discussion on the Purchase Tax on textiles which we are likely to have. I hope that in the circumstances he feels that good progress has been made and that we might perhaps now adjourn for the time being and come back on Monday refreshed; I think there is only one important Amendment in Clause 8, and then there are the Amendments to the
    710
    Fourth Schedule which will, no doubt, occupy the Committee some time.
    Mr. Butler: My intentions are strictly honourable, and I have no wish to force the Committee to sit longer than they would wish. It so happens that the next debate is on outsize garments, and it is not likely to be unduly restricted. It also so happens—this is a serious point—that the debate on Clause 8 on outsize garments relates to men's wear, but all the Amendments concerning ladies' outsize garments are included in the Schedule. Therefore, it might be more convenient to take them in juxtaproximity to the Schedule so that men's and ladies' outsize garments could be considered in one debate. That would be a situation of great

    711
    amity and friendliness to which we might repair on Monday.
    I would also suggest that we have made reasonably good progress and that we should continue this progress on the next two Sitting days, so that we may attempt to finish the Schedules by the end of those two days, in view of the very great length of the Bill. If we cannot do anything on the basis of a definite understanding for that never works—it might at least be said that that is our aim. In those circumstances, I am glad to accede to the Motion.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  Mr. Angus Maude discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates and Lord John Hope added.—[Mr. Butcher.]

  CHILDREN (LEAD POISONING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]
  11.19 p.m.
  Miss Elaine Burton (Coventry, South): The matter which I wish to raise tonight is one which, I might say, does not fall within my usual knowledge. About two months ago I was visited by a worker in one of our London hospitals famous for its work among children. She asked me whether I knew about lead poisoning in children. Up to the time of her visit, I did not. She told me herself of four cases in her own hospital, three of them relatively recent, and one in another London hospital. Her anxiety was not only about these known cases, but about other cases which were suspected and which she felt were not correctly diagnosed.
  When she told me about these cases in her own hospital and about the symptoms in the children involved, she asked me if I would raise the matter in Parliament. It seemed to me, in view of what she had said, that I should perhaps be rendering a public service by doing so. I thought that if the matter could be brought to the attention of the Government and of people concerned, we might be able to deal with it not only by restriction but by
  712
  discussion among the people affected, such as traders, manufacturers, parents, teachers, doctors or nurses.
  Last week, I went into some of our big London stores, and looked along the counters there, with their attractive displays of lead toys; soldiers, Indians and cowboys, totem poles, farm workers, sentries and sentry boxes, and all those things that we knew so well. No doubt hon. Members, when they were young, enjoyed collecting these things, as I did, although a girl; but last week, I looked at them differently; I wondered how much lead went into the paint on those soldiers.
  So far as infants are concerned, I am told that the danger of lead poisoning lies in two main sources. First, the application of powder, containing lead, to the skin; and I would say at this point that, although I have made inquiries, I have not been able to find out how much of the powder sold for infant skins contains lead.
  The second source of danger which my woman visitor stressed was the use of lead nipple-shields by mothers of small infants. Up to five years of age, I am told, there is a danger of pica, or what the layman knows as perverted appetite. All of us know of the temporary phase through which children pass of putting objects in their mouths, and with some children, this becomes a craving of an insatiable nature for painted objects. They chew window-sills, crib railings, and lead toys. The question is whether adults are sufficiently aware of this danger to young children.
  Before you came into the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned five cases which had been cited to me by this representative of a children's hospital, and I gave the details to the Parliamentary Secretary. They were also published in the "British Medical Journal" of 17th February, 1951, and four of those five cases suffered from pica. The fifth was one where the mother, not realising the danger, had used a lead nipple shield for 10 weeks. Of those five children, one died, two became mentally backward, one has recovered, and the other it has not been possible to follow up since discharge from hospital.
  I am anxious not to exaggerate the prevalence of this disease in this country and, indeed, one can find more known cases

  713
  of lead poisoning in Japan, Australia, and America than we have here; but I am sure that we wish to be at the top in freedom from this disease.
  I was hoping to have the opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment, and I had balloted in the customary way, when suddenly, on 8th April last, I read about the case of a baby living near Plymouth, named Alan Simpson. This child had this insatiable craving to chew painted objects, and one of the things he could not leave alone was the top of his cot, and unfortunately this was painted with paint containing lead, instead of the more usual cellulose paint or varnish, and the lead killed him. The doctor concerned was reported as saying that there was no evidence to show that the child was suffering from lead poisoning. Furthermore, the pathologist at the hospital in Plymouth said that lead poisoning was not suspected until after the baby had died.
  That bore out what my visitor who was knowledgeable on the matter had told me. She had worried about the cases which were incorrectly diagnosed, and here was an example. Therefore, I put down a Question to the President of the Board of Trade which I subsequently withdrew when I was fortunate in securing a place in the ballot for the Adjournment. I perhaps in common with the Parliamentary Secretary, have no medical knowledge, and I do not propose to inflict on the House tonight any medical terms out of a book. I thought that it was my duty to bring this matter before the House for discussion.
  Speaking as a layman, I believe that lead poisoning in children could be prevented entirely. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Board of Trade would feel able to consider two recommendations: first, that lead paint, or paint containing lead, should never be used in places that children can reach, and secondly, that the sale, and presumably the manufacture, of lead nipple shields should be prohibited.
  Having said that about the first point, I think that it is only fair to say that the manufacturers of our nursery equipment are well aware of the danger of paint containing lead, and that modern paints used for this purpose do not normally contain it. But there is very real danger in the old paint which does contain lead
  714
  and which constitutes a great threat to children.
  Those are two specific points which wish to put. My third and more general point is to ask whether the Government would feel able to suggest that discussions should take place between people who are interested in these matters. I would merely suggest, obviously, traders or manufacturers, parents, teachers, doctors and nurses. If there is this risk from the chewing of articles which are painted with dangerous paint, we might consider printing on boxes of these toys a statement that they are dangerous to children or, alternatively, there might be a notice on the counter to the same effect in shops which sell loose objects and not boxes of toys.
  I have quoted five cases as well as that of the baby at Plymouth. That, I know, seems very few for the whole of the country, but two of these children have died and two will probably be mentally backward for life. I am sure that everyone would agree that if we can in any way, without exaggerating the danger, remove the source of infection so that no more similar incidents may occur, then we shall not have raised the matter in vain. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make some suggestions.
  11.29 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): The hon. Lady was good enough to indicate to me the matters that she had in mind in raising this topic tonight with which she would like me to deal. I am grateful to her for that, and it may enable me to say a little more than I should have otherwise been able to say.
  What she says about the terrible results of lead poisoning in children is, of course, true. I agree that it is very important that we should not exaggerate the extent of this danger. We certainly wish to do what we can, and this debate may be useful in that way, to make known some of these dangers, but I am sure that we do not wish to cause unnecessary alarm. The number of cases of children under five whose death can be traced to the consumption of lead paint has been very few indeed in this country. The advisers in my Department and in the Ministry of Health have been able to trace only six cases in the last 20 years.

  715
  In the 20th century there have been probably only 15 or 16 cases of such lead poisoning from all causes, and not merely from lead paint.
  A frequent accompaniment or cause of these cases which the hon. Lady has mentioned and which she accurately termed pica, in the medical terminology, or perverted appetite, to make it more comprehensible, is also extremely rare. I think she will agree about the fame and experience of the Hospital for Sick Children in Great Ormond Street. It is, I understand, the view and experience of Dr. Sheldon, who, I would remind the House, is the consultant adviser in pediatrics to the Ministry of Health, that it is very uncommon indeed, and that he only comes across about two cases in a year. He is of the opinion that the disease is becoming rarer.
  I only say that by way of reinforcing what the hon. Lady said about the rarity of this disease. In no case has it been established, even where there have been these unfortunate poisonings that the original manufacturer was to blame.
  I will not, as indeed the hon. Lady did not, deal in detail with the cases mentioned in the article she quoted. In the case of the little girl who suffered from this insatiable pica, she chewed anything, skirting boards and window frames, and it is true that among the things she chewed was the handle of her doll's pram. That was found to contain seven per cent. of lead; but on examination the skirting boards and window frames had 27 per cent., and if there had been none at all on her toy it would have made no difference to the ultimate result. I can say the same of many of the other cases ited.
  I read a report in one of the newspapers of the Plymouth case which the hon. Lady was good enough to bring to my notice. That was a case in which some further examination was made by the Ministry of Health. The description of the case that did appear in the Press was accurately given by the hon. Lady. but investigations proved—I am not suggesting anything but an intention to report correctly—that it was not
  accurately reported. No analysis was made of the paint on the cot. It had been put on the cot by the child's father, and we have to remember in these mat-
  716
  ters that it is not only the manufacturer who does the painting but also very often the amateur in the home. I doubt very much whether any hon. Gentleman would suggest that all interior decoration should be confined to non-lead paints, but nothing short of that would have prevented some of the cases to which the hon. Lady has drawn attention. If that were suggested it would require legislation, and would therefore be out of order in this short debate.
  There is no compulsion to label containers of lead paint as containing something dangerous. Nevertheless, it is a fact that manufacturers generally emphasise the presence of lead as a point in selling their paint. If, therefore, this debate has brought to the attention of anybody who did not already know that lead paint can be dangerous, that will at any rate have been a useful purpose.
  I know that the hon. Lady would wish me to deal with some of the articles on which the paint commonly goes. She mentioned cots. The amount of lead, if any, in the paint on cots would almost certainly be too small to be dangerous. In the case of toys, the larger manufacturers certainly do not use lead paint at present. I am not saying that no manufacturer ever does, nor am I saying it never happens in the home, for there are such things as home-made toys. I think that in the store she described, where she saw these farmyard animals and lead soldiers, she would have found that, if they came from any of the larger manufacturers, they did not contain lead paint.
  She also mentioned baby powder. It is quite true that powders are dangerous in certain other countries, but I am not aware, from inquiries I have been able to make, that they are a danger in this country. I have been able to trace a non-fatal case in 1898, but that was 54 years ago. I have not been able to trace any other case in which a casualty has been attributed to it. The British Pharmacopoeia does not include any compound of lead for this purpose.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned—and here I quite agree with her—the danger of lead nipple shields. They are undoubtedly dangerous, but she may like to know the action taken in that respect. In 1949 the Ministry of Health told hospitals under the National Health Service of the danger of issuing lead nipple shields

  717
  to nursing mothers. It was arranged that family doctors and chemists should be warned. Lead nipple shields are excluded from the list of appliances which family doctors may prescribe under the National Health Service. Distributors were approached and immediately stopped the sale of these shields, and a warning notice was sent to the general Press.
  These actions, individually and collectively, have, according to the information given to me, been completely effective in bringing about the result which the hon. Lady desires.
  Is there anything more which can be usefully done? I cannot hold out any hope of excluding from the reach of the child everything that might be dangerous to it. It is literally impossible; there is no substitute for parental care. But one Statute occurs to one on this subject, and of course it has been and should be considered whether any further use should be made of it: the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, which gives the Home Secretary certain powers and duties. The Secretary of State can add poisons to or remove them from various lists mentioned in that Statute, or impose conditions regarding sale. He acts in this matter—there is a reference to the need for his doing so in Section 17 of the Act—on the advice of a Poisons Board, which is set up under Section 16.
  I cannot, however, say that I think it likely that the Home Secretary would think it practicable, or that the Poisons Board is likely to advise him, to take further action in this matter in regard to lead paint. So few casualties can be attributed to the use of paint containing lead. I am not, of course, talking of the dangers involved in the application of lead by those who apply it, which is the subject of certain Regulations under the Factory Act. But paints, other than pharmaceutical paints like that with which
  718
  one paints the throat, containing compounds of lead with acids from fixed oils are already the subject of a general exemption from the Act and Rules, on the recommendation of the Poisons Board itself.
  While, therefore, these matters will be considered from time to time at the Home Office and watched by those at the Ministry of Health, I do not think it likely that possible action under that Act would be taken or would achieve the hon. Lady's object. We should bear in mind that the danger of lead paint, if chewed or consumed by children, is very great. It is also extremely rare. The obvious cases, such as the risk of painting toys with dangerous paint are, I think, well known, and all the great toy manufacturers, so far as I know, avoid its use. It is very unlikely to appear on a cot except, if at all, in very small quantities. But if a child has the craving it probably will he the case that there are objects in the house within his reach which it would be very dangerous for him to consume.
  I do not think that a case for further legislation has been made, and I could not discuss legislation tonight. On the flatters I am at liberty to discuss, I do not think that there is any evidence that action which has not been taken ought to be taken. What I have said on the action of the Ministry of Health in regard to lead nipple shields shows that they are alive to the dangers of lead poisoning and act very promptly when a case comes to their attention. Perhaps the hon. Lady has this satisfaction that she may think, from the statistics I have given, that the extent of the evil is less than she feared and that she may herself have contributed by this debate to making it still smaller.
  Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Twelve o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Overseas Trading Negotiations
  Overseas Trading Negotiations
  Woollen Textiles (Government Orders)
  Woollen Textiles (Government Orders)
  Doctors' Cars (Hire-Purchase)
  Doctors' Cars (Hire-Purchase)
  Copyright Committee (Report)
  Copyright Committee (Report)
  International Materials Conference (Wool Stockpiling)
  International Materials Conference (Wool Stockpiling)
  Rubber Study Group, Ottawa (Prices)
  Rubber Study Group, Ottawa (Prices)
  CIVIL SERVICE (RETIREMENT PENSIONS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (RETIREMENT PENSIONS)
  C.O.I. OVERSEAS PUBLICATIONS
  C.O.I. OVERSEAS PUBLICATIONS
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  North Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Capital)
  North Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Capital)
  Foreign Travel Allowance (Motor-cycles)
  Foreign Travel Allowance (Motor-cycles)
  Navy List (Purchase Price)
  Navy List (Purchase Price)
AGRICULTURE
  Irish Cattle Imports (Warble Fly)
  Irish Cattle Imports (Warble Fly)
  Control of Cockroaches (Advisory Leaflet)
  Control of Cockroaches (Advisory Leaflet)
  Price Reviews
  Price Reviews
  Farm Survey, Staffordshire
  Farm Survey, Staffordshire
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Standstill Orders)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Standstill Orders)
  Wool (Guaranteed Price Award)
  Wool (Guaranteed Price Award)
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  Sheep Population, Wales
  Sheep Population, Wales
  WHALE CATCHING
  WHALE CATCHING
CIVIL DEFENCE
  Anderson Shelters
  Anderson Shelters
  Recruiting
  Recruiting
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (OVERTIME)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (OVERTIME)
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL STAFF, IRELAND
  IMMIGRATION CONTROL STAFF, IRELAND
  ROAD ACCIDENTS STATEMENTS)
  ROAD ACCIDENTS STATEMENTS)
  COMMUNIST MEETING, BLOOMSBURY (CAR PARKING)
  COMMUNIST MEETING, BLOOMSBURY (CAR PARKING)
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT (SECTION 8)
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT (SECTION 8)
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (CALL-UP)
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (CALL-UP)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Hospital Bedding (Mattresses)
  Hospital Bedding (Mattresses)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Wigs and Surgical Appliances
  Wigs and Surgical Appliances
  Hospital Admissions (Cardiff)
  Hospital Admissions (Cardiff)
  Training Hospital, Cardiff
  Training Hospital, Cardiff
  Opticians (Registration Report)
  Opticians (Registration Report)
  Ocular Tuberculosis (Swanky Unit)
  Ocular Tuberculosis (Swanky Unit)
  Chemists (Dispensing Charges)
  Chemists (Dispensing Charges)
  Invalid Carriages (Petrol Allowance)
  Invalid Carriages (Petrol Allowance)
  Improvements
  Improvements
  BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION, LLANWRTYD WELLS
  BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION, LLANWRTYD WELLS
  BROADMOOR INSTITUTION (SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS)
  BROADMOOR INSTITUTION (SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS)
EDUCATION
  Nursery Schools, Salop
  Nursery Schools, Salop
  General Certificate Examination(Age Limit)
  General Certificate Examination(Age Limit)
  Playing Field, Langley
  Playing Field, Langley
  School Transport
  School Transport
  University Students (Examinations)
  University Students (Examinations)
  Prefabricated Buildings
  Prefabricated Buildings
  School Classes. Cardiff
  School Classes. Cardiff
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Airmet Service
  Airmet Service
  Air Attachés
  Air Attachés
  TOMATOES AND TOMATO JUICE (IMPORTS)
  TOMATOES AND TOMATO JUICE (IMPORTS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (BLIND PERSONS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (BLIND PERSONS)
  WAR PENSIONERS (TRICYCLE ALLOWANCE)
  WAR PENSIONERS (TRICYCLE ALLOWANCE)
  BRITISH ARMY (DEPOT ESTABLISHMENTS)
  BRITISH ARMY (DEPOT ESTABLISHMENTS)
  P.O. SAVINGS BOOKS (PERSONAL CASE)
  P.O. SAVINGS BOOKS (PERSONAL CASE)

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Cromwell—Took the Oath.

POWERS OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
4.6 p.m.
LORD GODDARD LORD GODDARD rose to call attention to the recent case of R. v. Devlin and Burns for murder; and to consider how far the necessity for extra-judicial inquiries after conviction and dismissal of an appeal would be obviated if the Court of Criminal Appeal had power to order a new trial and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when the Criminal Justice Bill (now the Criminal Justice Act of 1948) was in Committee in this House, I moved, and your Lordships accepted, an Amendment which would have given the Court of Criminal Appeal power, in a proper case, to order a new trial. That power, I know, was designedly left out of the Act setting up the Court of Criminal Appeal, as was stated by Lord Loreburn, who was the Lord Chancellor at the time the Bill was introduced. But, of course, the Court of Criminal Appeal Act was a great and novel experiment, and only time could show how it would work. In fact, from the very early days in the history of the Act, as early indeed as the first year, 1909, when the Act was brought into force, the then Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone, expressed his feeling that the Court ought to be given power to order a new trial. That, I believe, has been the expressed opinion of every Chief Justice who has been President of the Court, as every Chief Justice has from that time, and also of many Judges of great experience in these matters, such as the late Mr. Justice Avory and Sir Travers Humphreys, whom I am glad I do not have to refer to as "the late."
The Act has certainly justified itself—at least, I think few would deny that—but one reason why people have been nervous about any idea of giving the Court power to grant a new trial is that there seems to
746
be some idea that that would enable the Crown to order a new trial against a man who had been previously acquitted. That is entirely wrong, and if your Lordships accepted this Motion, or if Parliament gave the Court power to order a new trial, it would not for a single minute enable a man who had previously been acquitted to be tried over again. Only a man who has been convicted can appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. We have no jurisdiction whatever over persons who have been acquitted. It is only when a person has been convicted and has appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal that this question of granting a new trial could arise. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the power to order a new trial would at least give a man a second chance of being acquitted.
At present, the Court can only quash the conviction or dismiss the appeal. The Amendment which I moved when we were discussing the Criminal Justice Bill met with considerable opposition, both here and elsewhere. My late friend, Lord du Parcq, made a very impressive speech against it, and so did the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, to whose arguments I naturally pay the greatest attention. I hardly like to differ from him, as I have for him all the feeling that a pupil has for his master, for he was my earliest master in the law. Still, I may say this, possibly as some excuse for differing from my master: that I have now had a good many years' experience of the working of this Court, first as a puisne Judge and, secondly, since I have been Chief Justice. That is an advantage which I have had over my noble and learned friend. In passing, I would say that the Amendment which your Lordships accepted did not find favour elsewhere, and I did not press the matter again when the Bill came back to this House because, if we had differed on this point, of course the Bill would have been lost.
But I now want to ask your Lordships to consider whether recent events have not shown that it is desirable that the whole question should be reconsidered. As the terms of my Motion show, I am going to call attention to a recent murder case that was tried in February at Liverpool and came before the Court of Criminal Appeal in March. I want to emphasise as strongly as I can at the outset that I am not going to utter a word of criticism against the action which the Secretary

747
of State took in relation to that case. I recognise that he had to make inquiries and that probably he had no other course open to him than that which he took, to which I will refer in more detail in a moment. What I want to ask your Lordships to consider is whether it is right that he should have to take the course that he did, and whether it would not be far better to confer upon the Court the power for which I am asking. Though it would not altogether obviate the necessity of some inquiry by the Home Secretary in proper cases, it would make a great difference and do away with what I venture to think is, in the end, an unfortunate procedure.
To indicate the points that I wish to emphasise, let me give you a brief account of the case. On August 19, which was a Sunday, an elderly woman living alone in a decent street in Liverpool was brutally murdered. The house had been entered and it was obvious that the reason for murder was theft. A considerable interval elapsed before the police were able to get enough evidence to arrest anyone. Early in October they arrested two men who have since paid the penalty for their crime—a man named Devlin and a man named Burns. I suppose I need hardly say that both of them were quite young, for it is the rarest thing at Assizes nowadays to find any criminals over thirty; they are generally between twenty-two and thirty. One of these men was. I think, twenty-one and was "on the run" from Borstal, and the other was a man of twenty-two.
The evidence called for the prosecution consisted first of the evidence of a man named McLoughlin who, like these other two young men was a professional criminal. His evidence was that he had been approached by these two men to break into this house. where, they said, there lived an old woman who they believed had money. McLoughlin agreed to help them in that enterprise. He had certainly not agreed to help them in murder, but I should think it highly likely that he gave away what he did and informed against them because he was shocked at the murder that had been committed. As I think any police officer of experience would say, the professional burglar seldom uses violence; he does not think it in accordance with the best traditions of his trade. He will not put his
748
neck in peril, though he will run the risk of a long sentence. At any rate, McLoughlin did give information to the police to the effect that this matter had been planned since August 5. He said that it was well plotted and thought out. He had agreed to take part in the burglary but, fortunately for him, he was arrested on another charge, I think two days before the robbery took place, and he was in prison at the time when it did take place. It follows, of course, that he had nothing to do either with the burglary or with the murder.
But in addition to that, two young girls of easy virtue were called. One was a girl named Marie Milne and the other, and for this purpose the most important, was a girl named June Bury. Their evidence was that these men, who were both Manchester men, had come over from Manchester to Liverpool; these girls knew them and they were more or less their mistresses, and at some café in Liverpool and also on a railway journey between Manchester and Liverpool, the prisoners had invited the two girls to give them their assistance. The suggestion was that they, or one of them, should go to the house and engage the old lady in conversation while the men broke in at the back. June Bury's evidence was that from the first she refused to have anything to do with it, and in that she was supported by Marie Milne. Marie Milne's evidence was that she agreed to help these two ruffians. June Bury was a close friend of the prisoner Devlin—she was sleeping with him at the time. Marie Milne, I think, was a friend of the prisoner Burns—but that does not matter. However, there was no question, and it was not challenged, that June Bury had refused to take part in this burglary, though Marie Milne had agreed to do so.
Accordingly, these men came from Manchester to Liverpool on the Sunday evening and Marie Milne met them, somewhere about nine o'clock, not far from the scene of the burglary. For some reason or another, they changed their plan and told Marie Milne that they did not want her assistance after all. The evidence was that she left them, having arranged to meet them again at a quarter to eleven, I think at a particular café—I believe I have the times right, but it does not really matter. She did meet them, and it was quite obvious that something had taken place, although she was

749
not told what. Your Lordships will see at once that those three witnesses alone—there were other witnesses with whose evidence I need not trouble the House—formed a deadly body of evidence against the two prisoners, but of all three, from one point of view, June Bury was by far the most important. The learned Judge who tried the case would have to—as he did—warn the jury to regard the evidence of McLoughlin and Marie Milne with particular suspicion, because they were, on their own showing, willing to be accomplices in this matter. June Bury, however, was in a different position because—and, as I say, she was supported by Marie Milne in this—she had said she would have nothing to do with it.
The prisoners had nothing to say to this evidence except that it was entirely untrue, because their defence was an alibi—in one way a rather desperate alibi. Their defence was that at the time they were supposed to be breaking into this woman's house and killing her they were engaged with another man named Alan Cunningham, whom they called, at a factory-breaking at Manchester. If they could satisfy the jury of that, it would follow that although they might be prosecuted for breaking into the factory at Manchester they could not he convicted of murder. There was no doubt that a factory had been broken into at Manchester over the week-end, but when it was broken into was quite another matter. The factory was broken into some time between midday Saturday and early Mon-clay morning, when the crime was discovered. In the inquiry which followed, it was shown that the prisoner Devlin, at any rate, had managed to get information—very detailed information—with regard to this breaking-in, so that he could have set up a false alibi, as the jury found. That being the case, the men were tried before Mr. Justice Finnemore and a jury at Liverpool. The case took, I believe, something like eight or ten days. At any rate, it was a very long trial, because a great many witnesses were examined and, after a summing-up which was as completely full and as completely fair as any Judge could possibly have given, the jury convicted the accused men. Of course, if the evidence of the three witnesses I detailed to your Lordships was true, it was an overwhelming case.
Then at once an appeal was lodged in the Court of Criminal Appeal. It was
750
lodged on two grounds. First, we had the usual ground of misdirection by the learned Judge. It was not really seriously pressed; there was no misdirection by the Judge. But what was urged upon us was that we should hear fresh evidence of a most important character, and the fresh evidence we were asked to hear, it was said, went to show that June Bury, the importance of whose evidence I have already emphasised, had committed perjury and had admitted that she had committed perjury, and, secondly, that another man had admitted that he had committed the murder. That second man can be briefly disposed of, because he very soon retracted his confession. It is the commonest thing in the world, after any murder has been committed, for various exhibitionists to say that they have committed that murder—why they do it I do not know. But we were seriously asked in the Court of Criminal Appeal to consider evidence which it was suggested went to show that June Bury had committed perjury, and to inquire into the confession of this other man.
We declined to consider that evidence, and we declined for very good reasons. Matters of this sort have often previously been before the Court of Criminal Appeal, who have always, in these circumstances, refused to hear such evidence, mainly on the ground that they have no power to order a new trial. Your Lordships probably know that all the Court can do is to quash a conviction or dismiss an appeal. We have no power to try anybody. We have power, under, the Act, to admit fresh evidence, and the Court has often done it where it is relevant to some matter that has been raised by the defence. For instance, the sort of case that comes most quickly to my mind in which we have done so is where the defence has been an alibi and some evidence has been discovered at a time subsequent to the trial which would strongly support the alibi and which had not been before the jury. If the evidence we had been asked to receive in this case had been evidence to strengthen the alibi that these men committed the crime at Manchester when they were said to have been murdering the woman at Liverpool, we might, if certain well-known rules had been applied—such as that certain evidence could not have been called at the trial because it was not known, and so forth—have admitted that evidence.
But how could we, without usurping the functions of a jury, which is something our Court has always refused to do, investigate the case and come to a conclusion as to whether June Bury had committed perjury or not? If we were to quash the conviction of these men on the ground that that girl's evidence was untrue, we could do so only if we came to the definite conclusion that the girl's evidence was untrue—and, only a jury could do that. One of the things I am contending for in the Motion I am putting forward is to uphold the sanctity of trial by jury. It is only a jury which can decide whether a woman has been committing perjury and only a jury which can decide whether another person has committed a murder. If we had embarked upon it, we could not have avoided giving some pronouncement on whether this girl had committed perjury or whether this other man had committed the murder. Supposing we had said that we did find that she had committed perjury, how could she then have been tried afterwards by a jury? The prejudice that would be against her, the Court of Appeal having found that she had committed perjury, would be so great that she could not, I should think, expect to get fairly tried. So, as I say, the Court has always refused to go into questions of this sort as to whether a witness has committed perjury at the trial or whether some other person has committed the crime. It applies for the reasons which I have endeavoured to explain, in cases not only of murder but also of other crimes that may come before the Court.
But now see how different it would be if the Court had power to order a new trial. Then it would be for a second jury to pronounce upon the matter as to whether witnesses were committing perjury or not, or whether these people had been wrongfully convicted. We, the Court of Criminal Appeal, might no doubt consider the evidence afterwards tendered and see to what issues it went, and if we thought it established a prima facie case, whether it be of perjury or of wrongful conviction or of miscarriage of justice, then, instead of dismissing the appeal or quashing the conviction (which would indicate that we were satisfied that someone else had committed the murder) we could say: "There is a case shown here which ought to be re-investigated.
752
Let it go down for a new trial. Then these men who have been convicted will have the benefit of this new evidence which they say they have discovered. They will be able to cross-examine witnesses, to ask them if it was not true that they had committed perjury and to put to them matters in respect of which they allege the witnesses have committed perjury. They will be able to put to the witnesses suggestions designed to show that they have committed perjury. Then, when there has been a proper trial before a jury, if the jury come to the concluclusion that their case is right no doubt they will acquit the men." And a man, if once acquitted, as I have already said, is acquitted for ever, because the Court of Criminal Appeal has no power whatever to deal with acquittals.
Let us see what, in fact, happened. As the Court of Criminal Appeal has not this power, the only alternative was to lay the facts before the Secretary of State. No one doubts, I am sure, and certainly I do not, that the prerogative which the Secretary of State has to exercise is the most difficult power that any man has to exercise, especially in capital cases. As I have said, I am not making any criticism of the line taken by the Secretary of State, except in one very small matter, because he had no alternative but to have an inquiry into this matter. He appointed a well-known Queen's Counsel on the Northern Circuit—and he could not have found a better one—as Commissioner to hold the inquiry. In holding an inquiry, the Commissioner, in fact, retried the case. He had to hear all, or a great many, of the witnesses who had already been before the Court, and he had to make up his mind whether or not there had been a miscarriage of justice.
The Commissioner held this inquiry: and, if I may say so, right well he did it. And he came to the conclusion that there had been no miscarriage of justice. He found that June Bury had not committed perjury, and the other man, who had said that he had committed the murder, he dismissed as a mere drunken exhibitionist. Devlin had made a statement in which he had said that two men, McNeill and Rubin, had committed the murder, and therefore the Commissioner had to embark on an inquiry into that as well. In effect, he was re-trying Devlin and Burns, because if he came

753
to the conclusion that the witnesses were telling lies, the Home Secretary would then probably have to advise a free pardon, whereas if he came to the conclusion, as he did, that there had not been any perjury in the case, and that the other confession was bogus, then he was dismissing the prisoners' appeal again.
This inquiry which the Commissioner held was not held under the sanctity of oath; he had no power to administer an oath. It was held in private. The prisoners' counsel were allowed to be present to suggest questions that should be asked and matters that should be gone into, but the Commissioner said, and I think he was right, that he could not allow cross-examination. Police officers would have been present, but there was no one representing the prosecution. That is what happened, and it happened, as I say, because we had no power to hold a new trial. But what is, in effect, a new trial takes place without oath, without counsel and in private. I suggest to your Lordships that that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
There is another matter to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. I was somewhat surprised to find in the White Paper a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions in these terms:
"I consider it right, in the circumstances, that the Secretary of State should know, for the information of the Tribunal, that no prosecution will be instituted by me based upon evidence given to the Tribunal in respect of any matter relevant to the terms of reference. Moreover, I will not make use, and will take action as is open to me to ensure that no use is made, as evidence in any criminal proceedings, of any relevant information that may be given to the Tribunal."
I do not know, and I am not going to assume, that that letter was written with the assent of the Attorney-General, but it seems to me to raise a most serious question. June Bury had committed perjury, and if the findings of the Commissioner had been different, should she have been prosecuted for swearing a man's life away, and should she have received severe punishment for so doing? If another man had committed the murder, was it right that he should go scot-free? If this letter does not mean that if a murderer or perjurer likes to come forward and make admissions he will be allowed to go scot-free, then the letter is a trap. It was not so considered
754
by the Commissioner, because he told the witnesses that they were perfectly safe, that they could tell him anything they liked and make any confession, and they would not be proceeded against.
Let us consider another aspect of such a letter and what proceeds from a case if extra-judicial inquiries are held in this way. Suppose that June Bury had been Devlin's mistress, or at any rate his sweetheart. Suppose that in a serious case a sweetheart has given evidence against a man, or a mother against her son, and that it has resulted in a conviction. If that woman then hears that she can go before a Commissioner who is inquiring into the case and say what she likes, and will not be convicted, is there not the strongest temptation for her to conic forward and say what is untrue—that she did commit the murder or burglary or perjury—because she has been told that nothing can happen to her if she does so? I think this is an extremely dangerous proceeding.
I realise, of course, like your Lordships, that often it is necessary for the police or other persons whose duty it is to investigate crime, to allow somebody to turn what is called King's evidence, because they are less responsible for the crime. Let me take a very common case, that of abortion, where a professional abortionist is being prosecuted. The authorities could never get evidence unless they had one of the women who had been aborted, and who, therefore, in law was equally responsible, to come forward and give evidence. In bringing before the jury a woman who, on her own showing, has been a party to the crime, the Judge will warn the jury about her evidence—and a conviction would he quashed if he did not; he will warn them that they must accept her evidence with the greatest caution and must not act upon it unless it is corroborated. She comes before the jury as a tainted witness, whose evidence they have to consider with the greatest possible care. This case is entirely different. There has been a confession, which is being inquired into, and the witnesses are told that they can tell the Commissioner what they like and make any confession open to them, he having undertaken that they will not be prosecuted. It was a fortunate thing in this case that June Bury was found not to have committed perjury, and that none of the three

755
men who were said to have committed the murder had committed the murder. I am wondering what would have happened if the Commissioner had come to a different conclusion.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I have only just seen this letter. May I ask whether the noble and learned Lord understands the letter to mean that if June Bury had brought forward evidence that the murder had been committed by somebody else, no proceedings could have been taken against that person?
LORD GODDARD: No, I do not know about that. It raises rather a nice question. What I say is that if June Bury came forward and said she had committed perjury and sworn this man's life away, she could not have been prosecuted. The noble and learned Earl will find that that is the explanation which the Commissioner gave to the witnesses who came forward. That seems to me to be a matter that is of very great, I would almost say constitutional, importance. The only criticism that I would make of the action of the Secretary of State is this—and it is a minor criticism. Having held this private inquiry, he publishes the results in a White Paper. No one would ever suggest, and more especially in capital cases, that the Home Secretary is not entitled and ought not (in fact, he always does) to make as many inquiries as he likes. He has to make inquiries into many matters to consider whether he will advise a reprieve. But it seems to me that it is rather a novelty to publish to the world conclusions which I should have thought ought, at the highest, to be no more than private advice to him.
It is no light thing for one man, however competent he may be—and, as I have said, Mr. Gerrard was about the best man who could have been chosen, and he did his work extremely well—to come to a conclusion and have to report that there has been a wrongful conviction by a High Court Judge and jury, and a miscarriage, also, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, who upheld the conviction, and then for that conclusion to be published to the world. If there has been a miscarriage of justice, no doubt everybody would wish it to be put right at the earliest possible moment and in the fullest possible manner. But a matter of this sort, if it does result in
756
overturning the decision of the duly constituted courts of the country, is apt to cause some doubt and disquiet in the public mind as to the competency of the courts. It is really a different matter, because of fresh evidence, but people do not always understand these things. I know that even if we had the power to order a new trial, it still, perhaps, would be necessary in many cases for the Home Secretary to make further inquiries. But I cannot believe that it would be necessary for the Secretary of State to hold these extra-judicial inquiries in this way. If we had thought that there was anything in the evidence which really deserved a new trial, then the matter could have been dealt with in the proper manner, and the only tribunal which, according to the laws of this country, has power to pass upon such matters—namely, a jury—would have had an opportunity of returning a verdict.
As I say, it is not only in cases of murder, and it is not only in cases where fresh evidence comes up, that it is desirable that the courts should have this power. It happens from time to time that a jury gives an inconsistent verdict, and at present, if a jury gives an inconsistent verdict, the court must quash the conviction. Let me remind your Lordships of a case which was very much under discussion in your Lordships' House when I moved an Amendment to the Bill in 1948. Two detectives of the Metropolitan Police Force had been charged at the Old Bailey with robbing aliens. The case made against them was that they had special duties with regard to aliens and interviewed various people, some of whom could hardly speak English, and that they had threatened to prosecute them for imaginary offences if they did not give them money, property or something of that sort. A very formidable case was made against them. They were tried at the Old Bailey on an indictment which I believe contained seven charges. The first was that these two men had conspired together to do this, and then the particular offences which it was said they had committed were set out in the separate counts. The jury came back with a verdict of guilty of conspiracy; but they found the defendants not guilty upon all the other counts in the indictment, which charged the particular offences upon which alone the conspiracy

757
rested. Your Lordships may laugh, but I can well understand the reason for it. The reason was that the jury thought that these two men were obvious rogues, but there was, as we call it, a disagreement among the jury on the various charges. Some of the jury may have thought that in the case of "A" the men did do it; but two or three may have thought that they did not do it in that case, but in another; and possibly the other members of the jury were not of the same opinion in regard to the second case. If the jury had disagreed, then the whole case could have been tried over again.
That answers one of the objections so constantly urged against the Court's having power to order a new trial. It is said that it puts a man to the misery, or whatever one likes to call it, of having to stand his trial a second time. It often happens that a man has to stand his trial twice, because if a jury disagree—and I think there is an unfortunate tendency in juries to disagree nowadays—then the man has to be tried again. Seldom does an Old Bailey session go by, or a long assize at Liverpool, Leeds or one of the big provincial centres, without there being a disagreement, which means that the man has to be tried over again. Then it is said that if he is tried over again he will not have the least chance of acquittal. Why not'? "Because," it is said, "it would be known that he had already been tried." I do not believe that juries take such an extraordinary interest in police court reports—I am not suggesting that they may not in a very sensational or important case, but ordinarily I do not think they do—that if they were called upon to serve on a jury they would remember that the man had been tried. At any rate, I believe that this power of ordering a new trial exists in all, or almost all, of the Dominions; it exists in every court in America, both State and Federal; and certainly it exists in Canada, where I know that it is very much used.
In only one place have I been able to find out from statistics how often a man gets off if he is tried a second time, and that place is New South Wales. Statistics there show that where a new trial has been ordered the chances are about fifty-fifty as to whether there is a conviction or an acquittal. I once again emphasise—though I do not think it is
758
really necessary—that it is only where a man has been convicted that the question of ordering a new trial can possibly arise. What the objection is to giving the man a chance of getting off on a second trial, I do not know. But one thing I do know is that the number of prisoners who ask if they may have a new trial is quite remarkable. I do not think my late lamented friend Lord du Parcq could have had that in mind: he did not often sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal, although he did on several occasions. I see it much more, because I have to preside in the Court of Criminal Appeal practically every Monday. What I have said it seems to me shows that this idea that it is unfair and hard on prisoners that they should be tried over again has no foundation in fact. We are constantly being told: "Well, somebody might have come and said this, that and the other." Nowadays, when every prisoner is defended at the public expense, they show no gratitude for it, because one of their commonest grounds of appeal is that their; counsel "messed up the case" and would not ask the questions they wanted asked; and they ask for a new trial before a jury. The answer is, "No, you cannot, however deserving you may think it." That seems to me to deal with the argument that is so often put up in this matter—that it would be really a hardship on prisoners to allow a second trial.
With regard to expense I say nothing because nowadays prisoners are all defended at the public expense. They are more often than not very well defended, as they were in this case by two leading Queen's Counsel, the leader of the circuit and a lady Queen's Counsel, whose ability in defending cases will immediately be recognised by anyone hearing her. Therefore, I do not think there is anything in that point. As I have said, it is a remarkable fact that England and Scotland—I am not certain about Ireland—are, I believe, the only places in the British Commonwealth in which this power to order a new trial does not exist. There may be one other, but I am not certain about it. Of course, I realise that if this power were given it might be thought desirable that it should be limited to certain cases or to certain events. Personally, I should prefer that it should be left to the Court. I am sure that it is a power which would be used

759
very sparingly; but that it ought to exist in proper cases I am quite sure.
I make no apology for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House, because I know the great interest which this House—which, after all, is the Supreme Court of Judicature in this country—takes in all matters which relate to the administration of justice; and, as I have said, your Lordships supported the Amendment which I ventured to move in 1948. I bring this question again before the House not in the interests of prisoners, and assuredly not in the interests of prosecutors. I do it in the interests of justice. Those of us who have been in the profession as long as, I regret, that I have are tempted to look upon the Court of Criminal Appeal as a new Court, and certainly it was not in existence until I had been called to the Bar for nine years. But it has been in existence now for forty-four years, and I believe that no one would deny that it has justified itself and that it has gone far to justify the hopes and intentions of its founders. It is because I want to see it, if possible, made a still more perfect instrument in the attainment of justice that I beg to move for Papers.
4.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has greatly interested this House in his general argument, and I think particularly in his lively, vivid account of a story of mystery and violence, in the course of which he has shown that, if he did not happen to be Lord Chief Justice of England, he might well be another Edgar Wallace, with every conceivable claim to interest the public in shocking crimes of violence. My only reason for intervening is a circumstance to which my noble friend has alluded, and which is a distress to all of us who remember the debates of 1948. In the summer of 1948 we had two debates on this subject, and on both occasions speeches of great power were made by Lord du Parcq who, alas! is no longer with us. I do not think members of the House who remember the debates would challenge me when I say that those two speeches of his made an immense impression on those who heard him, and who were endeavouring with all their might to judge the issue wisely. He is no longer
760
here and, therefore, I hope I am justified in adding a few words. Since the Lord Chief Justice has been so kind as to refer to me as though he were once my pupil, I may say that Lord du Parcq was also my pupil, so I have no prejudice in the matter.
It is necessary for a few moments to be sure that we all appreciate the history of the proposal that the Court of Criminal Appeal should have the power to grant a new trial. It is necessary to get that in focus. It was referred to in a sentence or two by my noble and learned friend, but I think I ought to add a few words. It was in the year 1906—the first year in which I was a Member of another place—that the Criminal Appeal Bill was introduced, and it was carried into law in the following year, 1907. That Bill, as it was framed, provided for the first time for a Court of Criminal Appeal from a conviction at assizes, or wherever it may be. As that Bill was first introduced it contained no provision for a new trial. That provision was omitted quite deliberately, on the view that it was a most essential principle of our administration of justice that once a man had been accused before a competent court of a crime, and once the issue had been pronounced upon by a jury, either convicting him or acquitting him, the best rule to follow was that he ought not to be exposed to that same peril a second time.
When the Bill of 1907 reached your Lordships' House then, for the first time, it was amended by the insertion of a clause of this sort. It came back to the Commons, and a series of speeches were made in the year 1907 against this proposal—speeches which at that time were thought to be so powerful as to require the suggestion to be abandoned. As my noble and learned friend said, Lord Lore-burn (formerly Sir Robert Reid) was Lord Chancellor at the time, and he said in your Lordships' House, when this matter was being considered, that in view of the speeches which had been made in the House of Commons, for example, by Sir Edward Carson, insisting upon this essential and elementary principle of British criminal justice, and by Lord Robert Cecil and others I could name, and having himself always been doubtful on the point, he felt that it was impossible to justify the insertion of the clause in the Bill. The consequence was that ever since the Court of Criminal Appeal was

761
established under the original Act, it has never had that power.
Then we had our debates in 1948—and very interesting debates they were—in which there was an acute difference of opinion. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice made the persuasive speech which we expect from him, and there were others for whom I have the very greatest regard who agreed with his view. Lord du Parcq did not, and he made the speeches to which I have just referred. It is essential, therefore, that your Lordships should have in mind what were the main arguments which were used by Lord du Parcq, because, though I ant not in the least opposed to this whole matter being reconsidered, so long as it is reconsidered in the proper atmosphere and temper, I think it would be a grave mistake to suppose that there is only one side to the argument.
There is great force in the argument that the Court of Criminal Appeal should have the power to order a new trial. But I think I can show that there is also a strong argument against it. It is the argument which has hitherto prevailed, not only in 1907 but also in 1948. What happened in 1948 was this—I am speaking within the memory of the noble and learned Earl Lord Jowitt, who was then Lord Chancellor. There again, the Criminal Justice Bill as introduced by the former Government did not contain this clause—and deliberately did not, I am sure, because it would have been put in if it had been thought right to do so. The proposal was made in this House as an Amendment to the Bill. I do not recollect that the proposal was originally made by the Lord Chief Justice; I thought it was made from the Woolsack. Difficulties were felt in various forms of amendment, and there was a good discussion. But ultimately this very significant Bill was amended in this House and was sent back to the House of Commons with the proposal in it.
How, then, did this provision fail to become law? It had been the subject of a most important debate here; the then Lord Chancellor had proposed the insertion of the clause. How did it fail to become law? I am speaking, I think, within the recollection of my noble and learned friend, and I have reminded myself by reading the debates. The reason it did not become law was that by the time
762
it got back to another place the authorities then responsible here had begun to realise that it would not be accepted there. The then Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, made a very frank speech. He said of the proposal that he was extremely doubtful—and that other people thought so—whether it would he a wise thing to do; and he ended by giving some of the reasons why.
The point is that, having considered the situation and having inquired what the lawyers in the House of Commons thought about it, and what other people thought about it, he came to the conclusion—and so did my noble friend—that they could not consider the proposal. And they dropped it. In fact, the House of Commons moved "not to agree with the Lords Amendment" and that was accepted here, on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. Consequently, although this matter was so carefully considered not so long ago, we still remain under a system of criminal procedure by which this Court of Criminal Appeal may have to hear an appeal by a convicted prisoner and to decide whether that appeal shall be allowed or not allowed. The Court may, if it thinks it right quash the conviction, as it is called or it may, alternatively, refuse to grant the leave, in which case the conviction stands. The Court, as yet, has no power to order a new trial.
All I am concerned with to-day is, without much delay, to state to the House in the simplest terms I can what are the two main reasons which, in the opinion of many people, show that that is the wiser view to take. Not for a single moment would I suggest that there is not a serious argument in favour of the change; and there are other most distinguished and experienced men, lawyers of the highest eminence and others, who think it a natural change to make. But what are the two main reasons which hitherto have been thought such as to show that, on the whole, it is better that the Court of Criminal Appeal should not have this power, even though distinguished members of the Court have asked for it? Let us see, quite clearly, how reasonable the request appears to be. As the law is now administered, there are undoubtedly cases in which it is thought that the appeal to the Court

763
of Criminal Appeal must be allowed because there has been some mistake in the procedure, and yet where it may be reasonably supposed that, if the man were tried over again, he might be convicted. I do not deny that there are cases under the present administration of the law, necessarily, in which a man, probably a guilty man, gets off. It therefore seems reasonable to say "Let us change the law, at least to reduce the risk of that." Many people have put that argument forward with great force and power, both in this House and in another place. I see the noble Viscount. Lord Hailsham, is here: in the other place, he advanced this argument almost first of all.
But what are the two serious difficulties which must be faced? This, after all, is a case in which there are arguments both ways. What are the main objections? Why should we not provide for ordering a new trial in such cases? I think the answer that would be given by those who take the view of Lord du Parcq—and I am concerned to put forward his views before the House, rather than to make any case of my own—would be this. First, it is a fundamental principle in our criminal law that once a man has been put on trial before a competent court, charged with a criminal offence, and that man has been either convicted or acquitted, then he cannot be charged with that same offence a second time. That has been the law of England for centuries. Indeed, it is expressed even now by two phrases which are not English but in the old law French which was used long ago in our Courts. Once a man can say, "I have already been acquitted of this offence" or, "I have already been convicted of this offence," then he cannot be charged again with that offence. He can defend himself by pleading in the old phrase autrefois convict or, on the other hand, autrefois acquit. It is fundamental that a man cannot stand trial more than once on the same charge.
With great respect, there was one remark in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, with which I disagreed. That was his statement that frequently people do have to stand trial more than once—for instance, in the case of the jury disagreeing. Of course, there is no argument about that; you have to
764
proceed with the charge until it is disposed of. But what I am saying. and what the English law has always said, is that once a man, charged before a competent tribunal with a crime, has been either convicted or acquitted of that crime, he cannot be tried for it again.
EARL JOWITT: That argument does not apply in the case where a man is acquitted. It applies only where a man has been convicted; the worst has happened; and what you do by having a new trial is to see that he has another chance, when he may not be convicted.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not think that is a very important consideration. I am perfectly well acquainted with the rule as it applies, and of the fact that it applies only in cases where the man is convicted. I was stating my principle now in the broadest terms. If you alter the rule (I am limiting myself to the case of the convicted man) and say: "Yes, you have been convicted once, but that is no reason at all why you should not be tried again," if the rule were thus altered and you could have a new trial, a second trial on the same charge on which the man had been previously convicted, could you be reasonably certain that the second trial would be altogether fair to the accused? The argument is this (it has not been mentioned by my noble and learned friend, but it was a most important argument in our previous debates), that until the accused has been convicted the jury know nothing about his record. You cannot produce any information about his previous convictions. However many times he has offended, he is treated as though he had never offended before. Indeed, if by accident that good principle were not observed, the trial would not be regarded as satisfactory and he would be told that he must be taken somewhere else and tried.
Once the man has been convicted on the first occasion, the next thing that happens necessarily is that his previous record is made known. His previous convictions are proved. The public discover, and sometimes the jury discover, to their great astonishment, that all the time they have been trying a man who has done this kind of thing several times before. I have seen juries, even in my experience, showing some signs of surprise when informed: "Yes, you were quite right in convicting

765
this man. He has done this kind of thing several times before." On hearing that, the judge decides what the sentence should be, and very often he will make some strong comments about it. The newspapers, which down to that time have been bound to say nothing about the previous history of the accused, may write, and often do write, stories of his sordid life and his past misbehaviour. You cannot stop that; that must happen. Suppose that after all that, this is one of the cases in which a new trial is ordered.
The difficulty felt by many people, who only desire the consideration to be fully weighed, is this: Can you really be reasonably sure, if you say, "Ah, well, there ought to be a new trial," that the new trial can be conducted in a way that is really fair, according to our ideas, to the man who is accused? The former Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, in a speech which he made in another place, put this consideration in a most effective way. I am not going to quote his words—perhaps it would not be right to do so—but what he said in effect was this: "In circumstances like that, if a man has already been convicted, when the conviction has been published in the newspapers, when it is perhaps a notorious case which all sorts of people have been reading with avidity in such papers as they may gut hold of, when the whole story of his past life has been publicised far and wide, how can you really say: Oh, I do not think that would matter. He can still have a new trial with all this black record behind him'?". That is the consideration which the late Lord du Parcq urged in this House with so much passion and with such real anxiety to get justice done.
If there is any force in that, your Lordships will, I think, appreciate that this is one of the cases in which you have to choose between two courses, neither of which is ideal. You must choose: there is no alternative which has not an objection. The whole question is, to my mind, which is the more serious objection? It is an objection, of course, that a man who may very well be guilty may, none the less, get off because he, or his counsel, is able, on an appeal, to point to a serious irregularity in the way in which he has been tried. Perhaps evidence has been admitted by the judge which ought to have been excluded. Perhaps the judge
766
has summed up in a way which is not proper. Those are not faults to be attributed to the accused, but it does happen. Indeed, if that were the only consideration, there would be a good deal to be said for saying: "Well, if that is so, try him over again." That is one argument, but it must be weighed against the other one.
The other argument is—and is this not really more important?—you must so devise the practice of the criminal law as to make sure that no one is convicted in circumstances which prejudice a fair trial. I know it is said—I remember the Lord Chief Justice saying it on the last occasion—"If you give us this power, we shall use it only very sparingly; we shall want it in only very special cases." That does not impress me as much as I should like. Of course, I know very well that when the Lord Chief Justice says that, he means it and he would do his best to carry it out; but I do not know how we can put in an Act of Parliament that a court is to have the power to order a new trial and say: "but they are to use it very sparingly." I do not know how that is to be enacted. I cannot imagine words in any Act of Parliament which have said so. It is an assurance which, of course, I accept in its fullest measure, but the point is, what is the law you are making? While it may be true now in the days of the present Lord Chief Justice, or next year, is it going to be true in times to come?
There is a second consideration in this connection. I certainly pay great attention to the argument that they have this system in some other countries without, it is thought, disadvantage. But I certainly cannot agree that it is a good argument to say: "Well, they have such an arrangement in America." They have indeed. There are cases, in the United States, if I rightly understand them, where men have been convicted on a charge of, say, murder or rape, and where, by a series of new trials, for this reason or for that, they have been kept in suspense and doubt for years and years. I much prefer our English system. To my mind, it is a very important element in the administration of criminal justice that the result be attained promptly. I know it is said: "If you gave us this power, we should exercise it so as to have one new trial. There should not be more than one: there should not be a third time."

767
I venture respectfully to ask the question: "Why not, if you please?" In ordinary civil cases between "A" and "B," if something goes wrong you can perfectly well have a series of new trials.
Why do you provide for that or seek to provide for it? Really it is because it is realised that this method, though it has such obvious logical force, is a method which is calculated not to give a man in all circumstances the fair hearing which, according to our view, he ought to have. Therefore, while I am not in the least opposed to a proper inquiry as to whether we can learn more about it, I do not think it would be right for this debate to come to an end without the view which was expressed by the late Lord du Parcq, and which I must admit I shared, being placed before the House this afternoon. I will not say more about the general question, but those are the considerations, as I believe, which have to be weighed on the one side or on the other.
My learned friend gets a new "card of entry" for this much discussed but hitherto rejected proposal by reference to the particular case of these two men in Liverpool who have now been executed. I do not want to discuss that at length. I must confess that I have some feeling with him on the subject of the letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions which he read. I will not go into that further. I must also say this, because I have been Home Secretary in my time. In general, I think it is perfectly right to say that, where the Home Secretary has a duty to obtain additional information before he decides to authorise a punishment, it is much better to keep that information confidential. That has certainly been the case in my experience. I can instance one example which quite often happens in the Home Office. In many cases, after a man has been convicted, there has to be considered by the Home Secretary the question of whether or not there really is reason to form the view that the man is insane, that he is suffering from serious mental defect.
As I suppose most people know, the Home Secretary has a number of extremely experienced alienists, the best in the country, who form a committee and who, in any suitable case, would be asked by the Home Secretary to investigate. That is not a new trial, but it is
768
an absolutely essential part of the information which the Home Secretary must obtain. In my experience he never vouches these people as his authority. He has to decide in the end, and I am very glad to think that his decision is accepted. There may be many cases in which the Home Secretary has to make inquiries in one way or another. I see no way out of it. One can only hope that he can be trusted to do his work wisely, responsible as he is for one of the most serious branches of advice under the prerogative. But generally speaking, I think it is better not to say, "This is because Mr. So-and-so has inquired," for in the end the decision has got to be the Home Secretary's own decision, and nobody else ought to be vouched for it at all.
To turn now to the main question which he has raised in this interesting story, I must say that I have the gravest doubt whether the provision that a new trial might be ordered would overcome the difficulty. I can instance one variation of the fact which will show my point at once. In the case that the noble and learned Lord referred to, these two people were convicted of murder. They appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and before the Court of Criminal Appeal had come to a decision, there was put forward the suggestion that somebody else had said he had done it, or that there was evidence that one of the witnesses had committed perjury. But supposing that suggestion had come forward after the Court of Criminal Appeal had dealt with the appeal, they had already decided whether or not the appeal should be allowed, and had already said that there was no ground for allowing the appeal at all. In that case the particular problem of this kind would be just the same. But it would be no good saying "Let us have a new trial." The Court of Criminal Appeal would already have decided the matter.
LORD GODDARD: My noble and learned friend will remember that the Home Secretary always has power to refer a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and ask them to consider it on further evidence.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I speak subject to correction, but can he do that after the Court of Criminal Appeal have dismissed an appeal?
LORD GODDARD: Yes, certainly. Not long ago that was done. Evidence turned up which showed that a prisoner's alibi was absolutely right. It was a case of mistaken identity. We had dismissed the appeal, saying that we could not find any ground for interfering with the verdict of the jury. Further evidence came forward which showed that the alibi was true. We heard that evidence, and we quashed the conviction.
VISCOUNT STMON:I am very much obliged. That shows that the particular instance I put was not a good one. But, as I say, there are difficulties. Supposing that there is a suggestion that somebody has committed perjury, is the difficulty met by saying "Let the case be tried over again by order of the Court of Criminal Appeal?" It is a very common thing indeed to suggest that some witness has committed perjury. It is a very common excuse which is given in the case of a man who is guilty. I cannot think that the Court of Criminal Appeal would be likely to order a re-hearing on that account.
As for the suggestion that somebody else has come forward and said, "I was the murderer," consider where you would get to. The Court of Criminal Appeal hears that two people who have been convicted of murder are saying or suggesting that somebody else, "A.B.," claims to have been the murderer. Thereupon, a new trial is ordered. Then what happens? I cannot suppose that the man who claimed to have committed the murder would be called by the prosecution, unless indeed the prosecution believed him. I suppose he would be called, if at all, by the defence. The moment he is called by the defence, and the question is asked of him: "Did you commit the murder?" I should have thought he would say at once, "I am not going to answer that question. It incriminates me." I fear the only result would be that there would be more confusion than ever in the minds of the jury. The truth is that no arrangement will work perfectly in all cases. We remain under an immense debt to the good sense and the care which our criminal Judges exercise. But that really does not get rid of the fundamental considerations which the late Lord du Parcq urged so powerfully to the House.
My Lords, I do not wish to say more; I hope that I have made it plain that I
770
am not arguing in any sort of heat or certainty about the matter. What I am quite clear about is that it would be wrong to proceed on the assumption that there is only one side to this matter. It is a very difficult matter, and one upon which people may well take different views. If it is felt that the whole question should be reconsidered by some proper Commission or Committee, certainly I should be the last to object. But I thought it my duty to point out to the Mouse, as firmly and as clearly as I could, what were the considerations which in fact did apply when this matter was before the House only three years ago, when this proposal was finally rejected by the Government without dissent in the House. Those reasons are really very important reasons, and they ought not to be forgotten in considering the matter now.
I apologise for keeping the House to give this explanation, but it is only right that the other side of this matter should be slated as clearly and as firmly as possible. Our whole object here is to get the best practical machine for doing justice, and for my part. I must confess that I should be very unwilling to see any change made in the criminal procedure which would have the effect, as I fear this would in some cases, of depriving a man, guilty or innocent, of something which I regard as far more essential than the conviction of every guilty man—that is, a completely fair trial.
5.29 p.m.
LORD OAKSEY: My Lords, I intervene for only a few moments, and I do so because I have had long experience as a High Court Judge going on circuit, and still have some criminal jurisdiction as a chairman of quarter sessions. I do not propose to repeat the arguments which have been so forcibly presented by the Lord Chief Justice, but I wish to say that I am in agreement with him. I want to say a word or two in answer to the arguments which have been presented by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. As he said, it is perfectly true that from time immemorial a man could not be convicted twice for the same offence—that he could plead autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. That, of course, was when there was no right of appeal at all. The question is whether when you introduce an Act like the

771
Criminal Appeal Act you ought to give the Court which has the power of quashing a conviction or letting a conviction stand the power also to order a new trial. The argument that the old practice about autrefois convict and autrefois acquit ought to stand is, I submit, not an argument which has any real substance in it. The question is whether it is necessary and advisable for the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal that they should have the power to grant a new trial.
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, has brought forward a number of arguments, and presented them most forcibly, for saying that the Court of Criminal Appeal should have such a power. I am not going into all those arguments again. A new argument, which was not before your Lordships' House in 1948, is based upon the most undesirable investigation which had to be ordered by the Home Secretary in the particular case to which Lord Goddard referred. There is only one other argument—which I do not think the noble Lord mentioned—with which I should like to deal. It relates to what is known as the proviso in the Criminal Appeal Act. That proviso lays it down that if the court think that there has been no substantial miscarriage of justice, they can let the conviction stand, although there may have been certain irregularities in the trial. But it has been laid down, on the consideration of that proviso, that the court must be satisfied that a reasonable jury would without doubt have convicted if the case had been properly presented to them. That is a most difficult jurisdiction for the Court of Criminal Appeal to exercise. Who is to say what a reasonable jury would, without doubt, do?
Not only is it a matter of extreme difficulty to exercise that jurisdiction, but it is—as I think the Lord Chief Justice said—really usurping the jurisdiction of the constitutional authority—namely, the jury. It is a jury which has to convict in criminal cases; and if the Court of Criminal Appeal exercise peculiar jurisdiction under the proviso, they have really to usurp the function of the jury. What is advocated by the Lord Chief Justice and those of us who take the same view as he does is, not that the Court
772
of Criminal Appeal should usurp the function of the jury in that way, but that the matter should be again committed to the constitutional authority—namely, to the jury—and that the man concerned, instead of his conviction standing, should have a further trial and a further chance of being acquitted.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I ask my noble and learned friend, in order to be sure that I understand him, whether it is his view that in a case in which a mistake in procedure was quite immaterial, the existing law really usurps the functions of the jury, and that instead of doing what the Court of Criminal Appeal constantly does now in such cases, it would be better to have a new trial? I cannot think that that would be the view of many who are concerned with administering the criminal law.
LORD OAKSEY: What I was saying was that when the Court of Criminal Appeal exercise the power which was conferred upon them in the proviso, they are, by virtue of the Statute, taking upon themselves the function of the jury—that is to say, of convicting the prisoner although there has been some departure from the law. I submit to your Lordships that that is not only a usurpation of the function of the jury but that it is a most difficult jurisdiction for the Court of Criminal Appeal to exercise. They have over and over again expressed the difficulties which they feel in exercising that jurisdiction, and in a case recently before your Lordships' House, in which the Attorney-General had granted his fiat, your Lordships felt the same difficulty. I wish to add only these reasons to the reasons given by the Lord Chief Justice and to say that I support him.
I ought perhaps to add this—that I recognise the strength of the argument which has been presented by the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Simon, as to the possibilities of publicity. I think that that is by far his strongest argument against the arguments of the Lord Chief Justice. But, as a matter of fact, I do not think that previous convictions are, as a rule, publicised in the newspapers. Of course, I apprehend that if there were to be a re-trial, the fact that it was a re-trial would inevitably be known to the jury, but the details of previous convictions are most unlikely to be known to them. Of course, the danger always exists,

773
to a certain extent, from the evidence having being gone into before magistrates. In cases of notoriety there is always that difficulty. But I do not consider that that is really an argument which overbalances the other arguments which were in favour of the suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice.
5.37 p.m.
LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, rising, as I do, from a seat next to my noble and learned friend, Lord Simon, I naturally rise with very considerable diffidence. There has, apparently, been some doubt whether the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, was or was not Lord Simon's pupil, but there is no doubt at all that I was his slave for quite a number of years. Quite frankly, I greatly fear that I may incur his wrath and arouse his displeasure, because most of what I have to say must necessarily be in criticism of the powerful arguments which he addressed to your Lordships. I have very little to add to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said. The main question with which I should like to deal is that of the principles which were laid down by Lord Loreburn—as related by the noble and learned Viscount Lord Simon—in 1907, and which the late Lord du Parcq laid down in this House in 1948—the essential principles of English criminal justice
The essential principle of English criminal justice, for which I am contending, and for which I understand my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice is contending, is that criminal trials should be conducted before a Judge of the High Court, assisted by a jury, in public, with the evidence given on oath, the truth of the testimony before the court being tested by examination and cross-examination. Lord Goddard is not desirous, any more than I am, that a person should have another barrel to his gun, so as to have a chance of getting the rabbit with the second if he misses it with the first. What we contend is that these extra-judicial inquiries, however conducted, and however eminent and learned (as Mr. Gerrard no doubt is) and however judicious and merciful in mind the person conducting them may be, cannot and ought not to satisfy the public mind, and that they do injustice to all those who appear before them. What has happened in this case?
774
I think that my noble friend was a little at sea about additional evidence. The additional evidence in this case, apart from absurdities like the man who gave himself up for having committed the crime—which does not matter because that is constantly happening—was the evidence of the two girls who stated that June Bury had told them she had committed perjury The rest was doubtful and I do not think would have troubled the right honourable David Maxwell Fyfe at all. But the statement placed before him by these two girls, that June Bury had told them it was not Devlin but another man who had committed the crime, caused the Secretary of State to regard that as a matter which must be investigated.
What would have happened if a new trial had been ordered? These two men, Burns and Devlin, would have been brought before a court on the precise charge of murder. They would have known exactly where they stood, no irrelevant issues would lave come before the court; the court would have had all the evidence produced at the first trial and which had arisen since then. The witnesses would have been examined and cross-examined and tested in every way, and would have spoken under threat if they committed, perjury. These semi-judicial and extra-judicial inquiries lead almost inevitably to some kind of amnesty for witnesses, as the Director of Public Prosecutions seems to think, and he is a man of great discretion, judgment and learning. The people who gave evidence before Mr. Gerrard did not come within the threat of criminal prosecution for perjury, because they did not take an oath. Their evidence was not so substantiated. Suppose the man who had committed the burglary in Manchester had come forward so as to destroy the statement of Burns and Devlin that that was their alibi. Is it to be said that he should be allowed to go scot-free? And if another man had convinced Mr. Gerrard that he (the other man) had in fact committed the murder, does Sir Theobald Mathew's letter mean that this man must be indemnified for ever and cannot be tried?
What I want to see is that criminal accusations should come before a competent court, in accordance with the essential principles of our law, the accused should be convicted, or not

775
convicted, when the due forms of justice have been observed, not because they are forms but because over a great many years we have gradually come to see that they are the best forms for securing the liberty of the subject when charged with a crime and for securing the safety of the community against those who commit crimes against it. That is the only principle for which we are asking here. We are not asking for additional means of attacking accused persons, who may be guilty or innocent. It is said that the second trial cannot be fair, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon has presented this argument with all ingenuity and eloquence. In a sense that is true, because persons who come to give evidence before the court have given their evidence before, and it is probably already known to the jury. But which is fairer: that all the witnesses who told their stories before Mr. Gerrard should appear before the court and be examined and cross-examined, and under the penalties of the law if they commit perjury, or that they should be in a closed room, not examined or cross-examined by anybody and tell their untested stories? I think it would be fairer if the Court of Criminal Appeal were able to order a new trial.
It is said that in 1906 eminent lawyers on both sides of the House were against the suggestion that power to order a new trial should be conferred on the Court of Criminal Appeal. Up to that time there was no court which strictly could be a court of criminal appeal. There was the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, in which points of law which Judges might reserve in the trial of a case went to be heard. Forty-six years of experience of the Court of Criminal Appeal by the community, and the growth of opinion and practice in the Court itself, surely present us now, in 1952, with a wholly different set of circumstances from those of 1906. The time has surely come to do that which all logic asks us to do and grant this new power to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
In 1948, when an Amendment passed in your Lordships' House granting this power to the Court of Criminal Appeal was rejected by another place, we lay down to it and did no more about it. Whether it was wise for us to withdraw
776
before the attitude of another place I do not want to say now. The Lord Chief Justice says that we should have lost the Bill, if we had not done so. I should not have cared very much, because I thought it a bad Bill and I was willing to lose it if I had had anybody to vote with me. That withdrawal in the face of another place was not made with the desire of the House,, nor did it indicate any change of mind on the part of the House. The situation was that we had negatived the clause in the Bill abolishing capital punishment for murder which the Commons had passed, and as we were likely to clash with another place on that point it was thought, perhaps wisely—I never know whether or not it is wise to make terms with the enemy—that it was better not to fight another place on both fronts. On that ground we withdrew. I cannot speak for everybody, but I can speak for those responsible for the Amendment, and it was only on that ground that we withdrew, and not in the least because we assented to the proposition which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has laid down this afternoon.
I want to emphasise this further point, on which there is a great deal of misapprehension in the public mind. It is commonly believed that in seeking this power for the Court of Criminal Appeal, we are in some way giving a fresh means of attack on an accused person. That is not so. This power can be exercised only when the accused person himself has come to the Court of Criminal Appeal. If he does not want to run the risk of a second trial, there is no reason why he should accept that risk, but from the point of view of the accused person is it not better that the conviction of which he complains should be investigated by a tribunal like the Court of Criminal Appeal rather than by an individual Commissioner appointed by the Home Secretary?
5.50 p.m.
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I want to say a very few words, but I feel that I ought to express my agreement with the view put forward by the Lord Chief Justice on this occasion. He speaks with unrivalled experience, and I feel that the House ought to be grateful to him for bringing to their notice a case of this sort and suggesting the remedy for the

777
undoubted evil involved. This is not a case of a man who has been acquitted being again brought before the court by the prosecution; it is not a case of a re-trial of an acquitted man. The acquittal is final, according to English law, and there is an end of it. This is a very different case, of a man who has been convicted saying: "My conviction is wrongful, and I want an opportunity of bringing before the proper authority reasons why that conviction should not stand." That is the sort of new trial which is under discussion here. If the new trial is granted, then the man can bring forward his evidence, poor as it may be, and he will be heard; he will have a fair trial before a jury, and the statutory judge will be able to pronounce their verdict. That is a very different case from the case which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has so strongly and forcibly discussed, of a suggested new trial of a man who has been acquitted.
Probably the real point to which attention should be drawn in a case like this is the undesirability of informal, unsworn, and almost unjudicial inquiries where, after conviction, a real point is raised which throws doubt on the validity of the conviction. There it is said by the Lord Chief Justice, and most forcibly so, that there ought to be a power in the Court of Criminal Appeal to say that there should be a new trial. Of course, that is a power which they would exercise only in proper cases: they have heard the whole trial, and they can judge what is the proper course to adopt. If they think the convicted man has adduced sufficient material to justify his having his case re-heard and reconsidered, then it is suggested that the Court of Criminal Appeal should have power to order a new trial. I venture to submit that the reasons which the Lord Chief Justice has adduced would fully justify a change in the law to that effect.
5.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the temptation of an obscure member of the junior Bar to take part in a debate which has hitherto been illumined only by the brightest stars in the legal firmament has proved irresistible. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments. I have at least this title to intervene: I believe that I am the only person present in this
778
Chamber to-day who look part in the debate in the other place in 1948. I do not think it would be in order for me to refer in any detail to the speeches made there, but of one thing I have the liveliest recollection—namely, the hour of the day at which that debate took place.
It took place, so far as I remember, between 2.30 and 3 o'clock in the morning, and certainly, speaking for myself, I felt a good deal of alarm and despondency when I read in Hansard the following day the sentiments I had expressed at that hour after what had proved an exhausting debate in the earlier part of the evening on a totally different topic. I therefore think that, great as is the respect which will naturally be paid by this House to the arguments put forward in the other place on that occasion, there will also be borne in mind certain other considerations which may have the effect of leading your Lordships to suppose that they are not necessarily conclusive. If the arguments of 1948 are not conclusive, then I hardly think that greater weight should be paid to the arguments of 1907, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, observed, it is undoubtedly the case that since then we have had forty-four years' experience of the working of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Even the highest legal opinion has sometimes erred when seeking to anticipate what the results in practice of a particular reform are likely to be.
It is supposed, and, I think, wrongly supposed, that in practice the proposed reform would operate unfairly to the accused. I do not knew that it matters! in particular whether on balance, pro- vided that justice is done, it helps the I accused more than it hinders him, because I venture to hold the slightly unpopular view that the; object of justice is to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, and not to provide a sort of fox hunt according to conventional rules which must not be broken on either side. It is my opinion—and I think it is relevant to state it—that if the reform were granted it would, on the whole. benefit the accused.
My own experience of addressing the Court of Criminal Appeal is a relatively modest one, but I have not been able to resist the conclusion that one of the difficulties of counsel for the appellants is that the court is often put in an impossible position. Either it has to acquit

779
somebody who, in the safety of this Chamber, one can call an obviously guilty man, or it must invoke the proviso to the Act which permits the Court to override a mistake in the procedure where it is obvious that no miscarriage of justice could be effected by so doing. I believe the effect of the reform would be that a larger proportion of appeals would be successful—not a very much larger proportion, I hope, but a significantly larger proportion—because I believe that the Court of Criminal Appeal would find it possible to send down for re-trial a number of cases where, at the present time, in practice, the Court finds it necessary, on the grounds of justice, to refuse the appeal. That is, I admit, a personal view, but it is none the less the opinion that I hold.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, says that it is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice that a man may not be put in peril twice; that he may not be put in peril again once he has received the verdict of a jury, whether it be one of acquittal or conviction. But in answer to that contention I venture to submit that this argument, ingenious as it sounds, is really nothing more than a petitio principii—it begs the question. If you have not a Court of Criminal Appeal, as we in this country had not until 1907, a man cannot be put in peril twice after the verdict of the jury. Either he is acquitted, in which case he is not guilty, or he is convicted, in which case he is punished; or, of course, there is a disagreement, in which case there is no verdict of the jury. Therefore, not very much can be placed upon what is supposed to be this fundamental principle until 1907. But if the power was granted to the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial, ex hypothesi any verdict of the jury which there may have been would be set aside before the re-trial was ordered. In other words, the fundamental principle would not be interfered with. The position would be identical with the situation where the jury had disagreed, since no verdict of a valid kind would have been given.
Then it is said that a new trial would be unfair to the accused. I do not myself think that that is so. It is true that the jury, or some of them, might be supposed to have in mind the fact that the accused had been tried and found guilty
780
at the previous trial. But they would also have in mind that the Court of Criminal Appeal had reviewed the previous trial and had pronounced it to be unsatisfactory. I cannot myself believe that a jury, with both those sets of facts in mind, would necessarily set out with the idea that the accused was guilty. I must say that I am not altogether so impressed with this argument as I should have been were it not for the reflection that it must ultimately be, in effect, the accused himself who has asked for the new trial. It is true, no doubt, that he would have preferred his conviction to be quashed—so would anybody who has been found guilty—but the machine could not have been set in motion except by his own hand, after conviction; and if he were so terrified that unfairness would result, I rather doubt whether he would take that action.
In my submission, the experience of the Court of Criminal Appeal has proved that in a number of cases a new trial is desirable, and one of those cases is undoubtedly the case where an appellant desires to bring forward fresh evidence. There have now been three or four quite different cases, including that to which the Lord Chief Justice has referred, in which the Court of Criminal Appeal have emphasised the dilemma in which they are placed. How can they pronounce upon the alleged fresh evidence by simply hearing the new witnesses themselves? Sir Travers Humphreys, in a well known judgment—I think it was he—pointed out that it was impossible. In order to be certain whether the fresh evidence is to be believed or not, and if to be believed what weight is to be placed upon it, it is necessary for the court listening to the new witnesses to see and hear the old witnesses as well, because otherwise their judgment on the new witnesses must necessarily be fallacious and imperfect. On the other hand, when the Court of Criminal Appeal is not allowed to do more than pronounce, because it is refused permission to order a new trial, it is unable to hear the old witnesses and, therefore, it cannot pronounce at all. That is a situation which may operate very seriously to the disadvantage of the appellant, amongst others, as those who have heard some of the recent decisions could not fail to understand.
Then it is said that the Court of Criminal Appeal is not to be trusted to

781
use its powers sparingly. I am not sure what weight is to be attached to that argument. I have heard it used of Govments by Oppositions in many stages of many Bills in Committee in both Houses, and I think there the argument has a good deal of weight. But when we are dealing with one of our responsible courts of justice we should not, I think, assume in advance that they are likely to misuse the powers which we give them. From the experience of appellate courts of all kinds there is ample reason to suppose that, in fact, the power to order a new trial, where it exists, is somewhat sparingly exercised. I think it is a fair assumption that the Court of Criminal Appeal, had they this power, would exercise it even more sparingly than they do in their civil jurisdiction. We have, above all things, the experience of the Privy Council, who have a jurisdiction of a different kind, to know how sparingly such jurisdictions are exercised in practice. Nor am I personally convinced that it would be beyond the power, either of the Parliamentary draftsmen, or of the Government, or indeed of numerous members of your Lordships' House, to draft a clause, were it so desired, in such a way as 10 make it plain that Parliament intends that the jurisdiction shall be exercised only most sparingly. For these reasons, I remain of the same opinion as I did in 1948, fortified now by having heard a series of distinguished speeches in your Lordships' House.
6.7 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, when I came down to the House this afternoon I had no intention whatsoever of intervening in this debate. Indeed, I came to hear a series of legal Tritons expounding this most important topic. In particular, I wanted to hear the Lord Chief Justice, to whose speeches on this question I always listen with great pleasure. Just after the Lord Chief Justice started speaking, my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt informed me that he had, unfortunately, to leave your Lordships' Chamber on an important matter elsewhere. He asked me to apologise to your Lordships for not being here. He had intended to speak, and he asked me to say a few words from these Benches, so a legal minnow will now swim with the Tritons.
I am, nevertheless, somewhat glad to have the opportunity of speaking on this
782
matter, because I had some years of experience in criminal matters as a lawyer at the Colonial Bar, as a solicitor in this country and also as a teacher of law. I have long been of the opinion that the reform advocated by the Lord Chief Justice should come into being, and should form part of our judicial system. This afternoon we have heard a series of arguments extremely well put on both sides. The arguments, have adduced all the questions for and against the principle we are considering. The Lord Chief Justice summed up the arguments for this principle, and his remarks were corroborated by a number of eminent lawyers, including, if I may say so, the noble Viscount who has just sat down. There is no need to go over the arguments which they have mentioned, because I entirely agree with them. And so, I believe, does my noble and learned friend, Lord Jowitt.
On the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill of 1948 my noble friend Lord Jowitt recalled to your Lordships that he had discussed this matter not only with the present Lord Chief Justice but with three of his predecessors, and he said that all these eminent Judges had agreed that such a reform as is now advocated should come into being. My noble friend Lord Jowitt told your Lordships, on that occasion that he was much impressed by the weight of testimony of these learned Judges who, after all, are more concerned than anyone else with this matter. Then my noble friend went on to say [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 157, col. 181):
"… I feel that His Majesty's Judges do know something about this topic. That being so, I should myself be in favour of conferring upon the Court of Criminal Appeal power to order a new trial. I stale at once that I think it is a power that ought to be very sparingly exercised. I am certain that it would be the view of the Court itself that such a power should be seldom exercised."
I understood from the Lord Chief Justice to-day in his speech that he agreed with that view.
The experience of my noble and learned friend is this. He supported this suggestion in Committee and, as I have said, on the Report stage he moved an amended clause. There was a Division on Report and, as your Lordships will remember, the House supported my noble and learned friend. The decision was not

783
by any means taken on political grounds; there were noble Lords on either side who thought differently on this question. Later, when the Amendment went to another place, the then Attorney-General told my noble and learned friend that there was very little chance of getting this measure through the other place with this particular clause in it: that the clause would certainly be struck out there. That was his opinion, and in view of that opinion my noble friend abandoned this particular clause. As the noble Viscount said, there were lawyers in the other place at that time, including the present Solicitor-General, who were in favour of the clause, but they were said to be in a minority.
The arguments against this suggestion were put by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. They are twofold. The first—and the House has been told this by a number of noble Lords—was that it is against British practice to put a man in peril twice for the same offence. The object, of course, is to prevent a man who has been acquitted from standing trial again, and, equally, in the case of a man who has been convicted, to prevent him from being punished again for the same offence. But here, of course, neither would happen, and I should have thought that giving the Court of Appeal the right to order a re-trial would come well within the scope of the maxim—and, indeed, should reinforce it. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said, no one need be put in peril if he does not want to be.
As regards the other point, that the second trial would not be fair because of the publicity attracted by the first, we feel that this argument has some merit. It was put strongly by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, has pointed out, proceedings before the magistrates are now widely reported, and in all probability they are widely reported in the district from which the man has come not long before the trial at assizes or quarter sessions takes place: whereas after a fairly considerable period has elapsed, the mind of the average citizen being what it is, he is highly unlikely to remember what has been said weeks or months before.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I did not interpose before, though I heard the same observation made by Lord Oaksey. There is a misunderstanding. I was not making any reference to proceedings before the magistrates. You can no more prove before the magistrates that the man had been previously convicted than you can at the assizes. That is not the point. The point is that, after a man has been convicted, though for the first time, his whole past record is made public; and, as my noble friend knows well, in certain cases there is notoriety, for the newspapers publish detailed accounts of the man's previous evil life. It is nothing to do with evidence for proceedings before the magistrates, for the magistrates could not hear any of this evidence any more than the jury could until after conviction. There is clearly a misunderstanding.
LORD OGMORE: There is no misunderstanding, so far as I am concerned. I was going to say that this was a strong point in the noble and learned Viscount's favour. Proceedings before the magistrates are often widely reported, but previous convictions will not have been published then, whereas in the second case they would be reported. It is on that point that the noble Viscount's case has merit. I give him the merit of that particular point. There is no case in history which is absolutely black or absolutely white, 100 per cent, sound or 100 per cent, unsound. There are always considerations for and against; and this seems to me to be a strong point for the case put by the noble and learned Viscount. There is, therefore, no misunderstanding so far as I am concerned. But we have to take the points for and against and weigh up the good and the bad; and I personally feel, and my noble and learned friend feels, that, on balance, in spite of the important argument put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, this is a reform which should be brought about. We should therefore like to see the Court of Criminal Appeal have the extra power which the Lord Chief Justice has suggested for it. We also feel, however, that as this proposal was turned down in 1948, it is a little early yet to bring it up again in any legislative form. We are of the opinion that the Lord Chief Justice and others who feel this way will have to do a good deal of hard ploughing in the wilderness before the legislative minds of

785
the nation and of the two Houses of Parliament are ready for such a change.
There are two other matters to which I should like to draw attention. They are very important matters, which arise as a sort of corollary to the argument of the Lord Chief Justice. The first is with reference to the letter in Appendix 1 of the inquiry by Mr. Albert Denis Gerrard. My noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt and I regard this letter as being an improper one. We feel that it must be read and must have the plain meaning that the words import. So far as we can see, it means that anyone who gave evidence—not evidence on oath, but testimony, or whatever you like to call it—whatever that testimony might be, even if it meant that the man had committed burglary or murder or perjury, he would not be proceeded against by the authorities in this country. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, sitting there. The noble Viscount has had great experience at the Home Office. Other noble Lords who have been Home Secretaries are also here, including the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I should think that this is the first time in history that any such letter has been written by a public servant in a matter of this kind. I should have been surprised if any such letter were written during the term of office of any of these noble Lords at the Home Office.
One other point which I wish to raise, with the support of my noble and learned friend, is this. I believe that the Home Secretary ought not to act in the way that he has acted in this instance. We believe that it is quite wrong for him to appoint a Commissioner and to publish a White Paper and to do the things he has done in this case. It is an undesirable practice and a breach with tradition and with all former practice in the Home Office. We think the Home Secretary should use such agencies as he thinks fit and make such inquiries as he thinks desirable, and not reveal to the public the method by which his views, and the advice which he gives to Her Majesty, have been formulated. With these criticisms of the action, both of the writer of the letter and of the Home Secretary, I support the strong arguments, as I feel them to be, of the Lord Chief Justice, and I beg to commend his suggestion to the House.
6.20 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack speaks, may I make one point in criticism of the otherwise excellent speech which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has just delivered to the House? Whilst commending the Lord Chief Justice's views, he has suggested caution, and said that the time may not yet be ripe to bring up again a matter which did not find much favour in another place but a few years ago. But surely the case is not parallel. The reason it did not find favour a few years ago was not so much upon the merits of the case as upon the highly political arguments attending upon other clauses of the Bill. There was involved in the Bill not only the wholly controversial question of the death penalty, but also a highly controversial timetable which made it imperative for the Bill to be hustled through. So far as I remember, was not upon the merits of the case which we are now discussing that the Amendment was dropped, but because by general opinion it was considered advisable to withdraw it at the time and say no more. With great respect, offering my humble support to the Lord Chief Justice, I hope that he will not be discouraged by the advice of delay which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has just offered him.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I say, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that, so far as I remember, I was abroad on Government business in 1948, and I did not hear many of the strong arguments put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and others at the time, I came back, I know, just in time to vote in favour of the death penalty, but, apart from that, I was out of the country at the time. My authority for the statement I have given to the House is my noble and learned friend, Lord Jowitt. I have explained what happened—that the then Attorney-General said that the climate of opinion in another place was not such as would accept this clause. My noble and learned friend did not tell me that this was bound up in some way with the death penalty. I had not realised that. It may be so. I do not want to "damp down" the Lord Chief Justice at all. I am supporting him. I say only that I do not think that

787
the present is a good time to bring forward this matter in a legislative form. More propaganda is needed before action is taken.
6,23 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I think your Lordships would wish me, in a matter vitally affecting the administration of the criminal law, to say a few words from this place, but I must make it quite clear that the view which I am expressing is my personal view. This is not a matter which has been considered by Her Majesty's Government, nor, if I may venture to say so to the Lord Chief Justice, is there yet such a weight of opinion behind his views as would justify Her Majesty's Government in now introducing legislation, even if—and this is a very big "even if"—there was room in our crowded legislative programme for the introduction of a measure which is certainly controversial. But if I may now give my personal view, it is most emphatically in favour of that which the Lord Chief Justice has pronounced—and so it has been these many years. I beg him to go on "ploughing the wilderness" in the hope that in time he may overcome the anti-prejudices of his master—I hope I have put the epithet in the right place. He will remember how many years those who advocated anti-slavery measures had to bring their Bills before the other House and this House at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. It often takes a long time for the beneficent reform to find its way into the heart of the public. I beg him to go on with his crusade, and in time I feel sure that the Court of Criminal Appeal will have the power which he postulates for it.
May I, in a very few sentences, say why I am in favour of the Lord Chief Justice's view? In doing so I realise that I shall only be repeating what has been said; I am in the position of one summing up. These are the considerations that move me. I believe that experience is more valuable than any a priori view, and in the fellow members of our Commonwealth we have the experience of a good many years of a Court of Criminal Appeal with just this power to order a new trial. Although, of course, one cannot prove a negative, and although, if
788
this became a matter of immediate legislation, I should certainly cause further inquiries to be made, I believe that those fellow members of our Commonwealth, inheriting their Common Law and system of legal procedure in criminal matters from us but introducing this system of giving to the Court the power to order a new trial, have found that this power has not militated in the least against the due administration of justice. That is a powerful argument.
Secondly, I believe that there is much force in the argument that almost without exception, but not quite, our own judges entrusted with the administration of the criminal law, whose duty it is to secure freedom for the innocent and to punish guilt, demand that, in the interests of justice, this power should be given to, the Court of Criminal Appeal. I have heard it said that it is contrary to the principles of British law, and contrary to the principles of British justice, that this power should be given. Who for centuries have been the guardians of the principles of British justice but the judges from whom these proposals now proceed? I, for one, should hesitate long before I dared to say that a proposal backed by the Lord Chief Justice of England, by Sir Travers Humphreys and by their predecessors who have sat for forty years in the Court of Criminal Appeal, was in any way contrary to the principles of British justice which they maintain.
This argument—I say it with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon—appears to me to be really a misconception of the position. The noble and learned Viscount said that a fundamental principle of British justice is that a man should not be put in peril twice: that having been convicted once he should not be convicted again. A man who is tried and convicted and appeals and is ordered to be tried again does not suffer the peril twice. It is all one peril that he is suffering. He is convicted and he chooses to appeal, and, if this proposal is accepted, he gets the benefit of a further chance. I venture to think that that is no infraction whatever of the elementary rule of justice, that a man should not be put in peril twice. After all—I say it with deference—is it not really paying tribute to a shibboleth? "A man is not to be put in peril twice"—that was a maxim that was developed

789
at a time when there was no right of appeal. But the whole aspect of the criminal law has changed. As soon as the criminal is convicted he has a right to go to the Court of Criminal Appeal and say: "I have been wrongly convicted."
There is one matter on the other side that has weighed with me, as it has with others of your Lordships. Of course there must be arguments on the other side or we should not be discussing the matter here; it would have gone through long since. That matter is the fear entertained by the noble and learned Viscount and by others that there may not be a fair trial. That is a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred—the fear lest a man who has been tried and convicted, upon a second hearing may not get a fair trial. because the jury may know too much about the case. I wonder how much there is in that fear. Here, again, I should venture to put a great deal of faith in those who, unlike myself, have had a lifelong experience of criminal trials. One is not to suppose that that consideration has not weighed with them when they advocate that this new power should be given. That being present to their minds, they yet think that it is not a consideration which should outweigh the considerations on the other side.
I doubt very much whether anybody can form an opinion as to the extent to which, if at all, that consideration would militate against a fair trial of a prisoner who is ordered to be retried. At any rate with me, it does not weigh in the scales against the other considerations applied to the question. Therefore, my Lords, for those reasons, I am, as I have been, strongly in favour of the view of the Lord Chief Justice. On this occasion the Lord Chief Justice of England links his proposal with events that have recently happened. I quite agree with him that one of the reasons—and a cogent one—for giving the Court of Criminal Appeal power to order a new trial, is the possibility of fresh evidence being adduced to which the Court of Criminal Appeal cannot, themselves, properly listen. I think that that is a very cogent reason.
The Lord Chief Justice has dealt specifically with the appeal against conviction for murder by Devlin and Burns,
790
and with the action of the Home Secretary. The Lord Chief Justice was careful to say that he did not in any way criticise the action of my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, in the course which he took. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, did venture upon some criticism of it. That puts me in rather a difficult position, because if an attack is to be made upon the conduct of the Home Secretary, it is in another place that that attack should be launched, and not by way of a side wind on the Motion of the, Lord Chief Justice. For my part, I say emphatically that the Home Secretary took the course that he was bound to take. Here was a case where a man's life was at stake, and in advising Her Majesty how to exercise the Royal prerogative of mercy he was hound to take every step that was open to him to see that an innocent man should not suffer. As the Lord Chief Justice said, this may very well be an argument for giving a new power to the Court of Criminal Appeal, but as that Court had not that power my right honourable friend was bound to take the steps he took to see whether there was any truth in the allegations which had been made, both in regard to perjury and in regard to confession.
LORD OGMORE: I hope the noble and learned Lord will excuse my intervention. I do not think he would wish to misrepresent what I have said. My point was that I quite agree that the Home Secretary should take all the steps necessary to satisfy himself as to the truth of the allegations in order to make his advice to Her Majesty as sound as possible. What I said was that I think it is undesirable that both the fact of the Commission should be noted and that a White Paper should be published with the result of the Commissioner's findings. I maintain that the facts upon which he bases his conclusion should be for him, and for him only.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I misunderstood the noble Lord, I apologise. I understood that his criticism ranged more widely than that. At any rate, let me say that in my view the Home Secretary was well entitled to take whatever steps he thought necessary in the interests of justice; and if, in his view, it followed that the allegations that were made should be investigated by an

791
impartial Queen's Counsel as being the best person to test the statements that were made, that was the proper course for him to take. I may add that in doing that he was not creating any new precedent, but was following exactly the precedent adopted in December, 1946, upon the conviction for murder of one Walter Graham Roland, who was convicted at Manchester Assizes on December 16 of that year. On that occasion, the Home Secretary invited a learned King's Counsel, Mr. Jolly, to make a report. The terms of reference were substantially those which were given to Mr. Gerrard in this case. Mr. Jolly made that report, and in 1946 the Home Secretary of the day duly published it as a White Paper. May I say that the Home Secretary has a very difficult question to decide? I would concur wholly with what the noble Lord said, that it is very undesirable that publicity should be given to these matters if it can be avoided. But in the exercise of his discretion, the Home Secretary may very well conclude that there is a degree of public anxiety which can be allayed only by publication, and I have no doubt that it was that consideration which moved the Home Secretary in 1946 and the present Home Secretary in 1952—I have not had an opportunity of consulting with him, as I heard for the first time this evening that this matter was likely to be raised.
Another criticism was made—and again I have been somewhat in difficulty because of it. The Director of Public Prosecutions, whose letter has been criticised, under the Statute acts under the supervision of the Attorney-General, who in criminal matters is responsible, and I venture to think that it would be a great breach of our Constitutional principles if anybody were to interfere with the Attorney-General in the exercise of that jurisdiction. I believe that your Lordships would be left under a grave misapprehension if you thought that there was any impropriety in the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am afraid it is commonplace that, in order that justice may be done, immunity is, on numerous occasions—I would say innumerable occasions—offered to those who are participants in a crime. Common examples are cases of abortion and of corrupt practices, where it is necessary to promise
792
immunity if evidence is given by those who alone can assist in the conviction of guilty persons. It may be that this is an example in a slightly different field of just that aspect of our criminal law, which cannot be properly administered without its occasional exercise. So, on the spur of the moment, I have had to deal with this matter, and I beg your Lordships not to think that the Director of Public Prosecutions has been guilty of any impropriety whatever in the course which he has taken. My Lords, at much greater length than I had intended, I have said what I wished to say both upon the general and upon the particular aspect of this problem. I heartily support the Lord Chief Justice and wish him well, if not this year, then next year, and if not next year, the year after.
6.39 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I find that I have so much support from your Lordships in regard to this Motion that it is unnecessary for me to take up much of your Lordships' time in replying. With regard to the two principles which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon put forward as Lord du Parcq's fundamental principles, I will say no more about the first—that it is a fundamental principle that a man should be convicted or acquitted once and for all—except this. Before 1908, if a man was acquitted there was an end of the matter, as there is now. If he was convicted, you directed him straight over to the executioner, if he was a murderer, or to the governor of a prison if he had been sentenced to imprisonment. And there was an end of the case, because there were no means of appeal.
In 1908 the Court was given power to inquire into a conviction, and to consider whether the conviction ought to be quashed or should be allowed to stand. A corollary to that—because it is unsatisfactory in the highest degree to have to quash a conviction when you feel morally convinced that the man is guilty—is that you should be able to order a new trial. And the same applies in other cases where the Court feels there really is some doubt as to whether the man is guilty or not. We cannot substitute ourselves for a jury, and it is highly unsatisfactory in the latter type of case that a man should not be given a further chance of being acquitted. The point which has, I think, caused most concern to your Lordships is

793
whether, on the second occasion the man would get a fair trial. There, again, many of your Lordships have pointed out that it is the man who, in effect, asks for a new trial; and if the court granting a new trial had the smallest fear that in any particular case the man might run the risk of the jury knowing too much, it could always order that the trial should take place in another county. There would be no difficulty about that. If the case had been tried originally in a small county, where the local newspapers had published reports of the proceedings, it would certainly be very difficult to find a jury which had not heard about it. But in places like the Old Bailey, which covers the enormous Central Criminal Court district, or the courts at Birmingham or Manchester, which also cover great districts, I do not suppose that juries hold these things in their minds or would be likely to do so.
Moreover, speaking from a long experience—though it may have happened; I do not say that it has not—I do not remember an instance of the evidence of the police inspector, who conies at the end of the trial to give the previous convictions, being published in the Press. Sometimes, as my noble and learned friend has said, newspapers have published details of a man's life, but they have now been shown pretty firmly by the courts that they must not do that while an appeal is pending, or while there is the possibility of an appeal. Therefore, by the time the case came before the Court of Criminal Appeal there would have been no publication, nor would there have been any publication after the court had ordered a new trial, or the editor responsible would go to prison for a very long time.
There are two other matters with which I should like to deal very briefly. My noble and learned friend Lord Oaksey referred to the proviso, as it is called. The proviso is to the effect that, while a court is of opinion that the question of taw might be determined in the favour of the appellant, they may dismiss the appeal if they are satisfied that there has been no miscarriage of justice. I confess that there are cases when one is strongly tempted to apply the proviso, because one very often feels the moral conviction that the man appealing is guilty. But there it is. I do not say that the proviso is very freely used.
794
but it is used from time to time. But if we had this power, which I am suggesting we should have, it would surely be more satisfactory to the prisoner and to everyone else. Instead of a court saying: "We are going to say the jury ought to have found you guilty in spite of this misdirection or whatever it be," they would be able to say: "You shall go back and have another trial, with proper direction, and we shall see what the jury does then."
The other matter upon which I wish to touch is this. I repeat that my Motion was not intended in any way as a criticism of the Home Secretary, because I agree with the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack that what he did was really all he could do. I have brought this matter up now, although I am conscious that it was debated here only four years ago, because I think that the recent case of which I have spoken shows how desirable it is that the Court should have this power so that the Home Secretary should not be placed in the position in which he was placed. My Lords, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
NEW TOWNS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FALMOUTH) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed and referred to the Examiners.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Reported, with an Amendment.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (HOLLAND HOCUSE) BILL
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.